Download PDF
By his General Form of Complaint dated and filed on 23rd April, 2012 the claimant seeks the following reliefs: 1. An order that the defendant pays the claimant the sum of N140,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) being the sum owed as salary for two months from the 1st day of January, 2011 to the 28th day of February, 2011, when the claimant was in the employment of the defendant. 2. An order that the defendant pays to the claimant the sum of N70,000.00 (Seventy Thousand Naira Only) being a month’s salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment. 3. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to pensions from the 1st day of July, 2004 up till the 28th day of February, 2011 when his appointment was summarily terminated. 4. An order compelling and mandating the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N693,700.00 (Six Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Seven Hundred Naira) being the minimum 15% that the defendant ought to have remitted into the Pension Fund Account for the period from the 1st day of July, 2004 till the 28th day of February, 2011. 5. An order that the defendant pays the sum of N251,800.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty One Thousand, Eight Hundred Naira) being interest accruable from the 1st day of July, 2004 till the 28th day of February, 2011 at the prevailing bank rate of 20% per annum. 6. An order that the defendant pays to the claimant the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) as General Damages. 7. An order that the defendant pays the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as Solicitor’s fees for instituting and prosecuting this action. 8. Interest on all the aforesaid sums at the rate of 15% per annum from 28th February, 2011 till judgment and thereafter at 10% per annum till full liquidation. Filed along with the Complaint are the Statement of Fact, List of Witnesses, List of Documents dated 19th April, 2012. In response, the defendant filed a Statement of Defence, List of Witnesses, List of Documents to be relied upon dated 11th June, 2012. It also filed a memorandum of appearance dated 9th July, 2012. Thereafter the claimant filed a Reply to Statement of Defence dated 25th September, 2012 and Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath sworn on 28th September, 2012. The defendant further filed its Witness Statement on Oath sworn on 8th October, 2012. The claimant was also granted leave to the additional documents. The claimant’s case is that he was a staff of the defendant before his appointment was terminated sometime in February, 2011. That the defendant is engaged in the business of sales of men’s clothing and other related accessories. That he was employed as a supervisor by the defendant by a letter of employment dated 15th November, 2003 which he accepted. That he received along with the offer letter a copy of the defendant’s Staff Employment Policy detailing the guidelines and regulation governing all employees of the defendant. The claimant pleaded that whilst he was an employee of the defendant he occasionally was in charge of supervising the entire work force of the defendant and this sometimes necessitated shuttling between the defendant and its sister company called Revista Limited. That on 22nd January, 2011 he received a letter of the defendant dated 22nd January, 2011 compelling him to proceed on a 60 days compulsory leave of absence which was to commence on 24th January, 2011 to the 21st day of March, 2011. He further pleaded that on 24th January, 2011 he proceeded on leave on the instruction of the defendant and that while on the compulsory leave of absence at the instance of the defendant he received yet another instruction from the defendant’s Managing Director via a telephone conversation ordering him to immediately return all the company’s assets in his possession. That he was not given any form of notice terminating his employment or was a month’s salary in lieu of notice of terminating by the defendant neither was he paid his salaries and leave bonuses for the period in which he was on leave. That sequel to the telephone conversation instructing him to return all the company’s assets in his possession and upon no further communication as to the status of his employment with the defendant, he instructed his lawyers to demand his pension and other entitlements from the defendant having worked diligently with the defendant for 7 years. That further to his instruction to his Solicitors they wrote a letter to the defendant on 1st June, 2011 demanding that the defendant fulfill its obligation to him. That by a letter dated 9th June, 2011 written by the defendant’s Solicitors asserting that it was not indebted to him. The claimant pleaded that since the termination of his employment the defendant has failed to pay his outstanding entitlements. The claimant thereafter repeated his reliefs as contained in the complaint. In its defence, the defendant admitted paragraphs 3 and 11 of the Statement of Claim. It pleaded that the claimant was a staff of the defendant until around the last week of January, 2011 when he voluntarily and unceremoniously left his employment. That it is not aware of any Staff Employment Policy being referred to by the claimant as no such employment policy was given to the claimant by the defendant or any other person whatsoever and that the defendant has no such Employment Policy. It further pleaded that the work description given by the claimant in paragraph 5 of the Statement of Fact was a part and parcel of his work schedule on the strength of which he was engaged being adequately paid. In response to paragraph 6 of the Statement of Facts, the defendant stated that the claimant worked for the defendant until January, 2011 when the defendant discovered to its shock that goods worth over N11,000,000.00 were missing from the company where the claimant was its Manager and one other junior who merely played a subservient role in the company. That the defendant asked the claimant to proceed on a leave of absence to enable the defendant carry out a compulsory stock-taking to ascertain the true state of things. The defendant further pleaded that while this exercise was in progress, only a few days into this exercise the claimant apparently sensing that the outcome of the stock-taking was very likely to implicate him, the claimant wrote a letter dated 31st January, 2011 addressed to the Managing Director of the defendant which clearly indicated that he was ending his relationship with the company. That the defendant never terminated the claimant’s employment as alleged or at all and could not have done so especially when stock taking was going on concerning a company where he was the Manager. That the outcome of the stock-taking irresistibly implicated the claimant and another employee of the defendant. That formal complaint was made to the Police and the outcome of the investigations together with confessional statements of the suspect gave rise to charge No. P/13/2011 wherein the claimant and that other employee of the defendant are standing trial on various court charges. That the claimant voluntarily left his job as a clever move due to the then ongoing investigation and stock-taking and more importantly that the defendant’s relationship with the claimant was only and strictly governed by the letter dated 15th November, 2002. In response to paragraph 7 of the Statement of Facts stated that the phone call made to the claimant by the defendant’s Managing Director only came subsequently to the claimant’s letter of 31st January, 2011 informing him to first return the company’s property in his possession if he was ending his relation with the defendant, while stock taking was still ongoing. That following the ongoing criminal trial involving the claimant by the State the claimant has through his Solicitors written several false and malicious petitions against the defendant and its Managing Director to several government agencies and parastatals including the Nigeria Pensions Commissions all of which were fuelled by vindictive motives. That malicious petitions did not see the light of day as each of the government agencies found the claimant’s petition to be false and unfounded. It further pleaded that the claimant in a desperate bid to put the defendant and its Managing Director into needless litigation expenses filed Suit No. FHC/L/IKY/54/2011 alleging a breach of his Fundamental Rights and that after taking affidavit evidence the court dismissed the suit in its entirety. That on 24th May, 2012 the first day this present suit came up for hearing the claimant’s lawyer confronted the defendant’s Managing Director after courts session and after verbally insulting him told him to be ready to defend suits for the next ten years. It further pleaded that the claimant is not entitled to any of the claims made therein as its relationship with the claimant was governed entirely by the letter dated 15th November, 2003. That the claimant is not entitled to any pension as no pension scheme was opened for him or any other worker as the provisions of Pension Reform Act were not mandatory to the defendant. That the claimant voluntarily turned his back on the defendant, a company he was given a free hand to run based on the fact that the Managing Director is only partially resident in the country. That there is no agreement that the claimant is entitled to salaries on resignation or bonuses or allowances or pension. It further pleaded that it received a letter from the claimant demanding that the claimant’s entitlements be paid to him and states that an adequate reply was given to the claimant especially that the defendant has no obligation as stated by the claimant to make any payment to the claimant or owe him any other obligation. That the claimant’s claim is unfounded, grossly misconceived, malafide and same should be dismissed. In his Reply to the Statement of Defence, the claimant pleaded that he did not steal anything from the defendant and that in any event the malicious allegations made by the defendant and its Managing Director are the subject matter of a charge before a Magistrate Court, Lagos and that the court had neither tried the charge nor convicted him. That the allegations that he stole from the defendant activated by malice is an afterthought consequent upon the receipt of his Solicitors letter demanding for payment of his terminal benefits. He stated that at all times material the defendant had in its employment more than 5 persons and indeed not less than seven persons plus himself and he is therefore entitled to pension benefits pursuant to the provision of the Pension Reform Act. Trial in this suit commenced on 23rd October, 2012 with the claimant testifying-in-chief as PW1. He adopted his witness Statement on Oath as his evidence-in-chief in this suit. Under cross-examination, PW1 stated that he would not know if monies were deducted from his salary for pension deduction. That he was one of the most senior staff in the employment of the defendant and also the one paying the salaries of the staff of the defendant including himself. He admitted being on suspension. That he wrote a letter demanding for his entitlement to be paid to him. That salaries were paid twice in the month from 1st to 15th and from 15th to end of the month. That in January, 2011 part of his salary was paid, that is, the first half of that month. He also admitted facing a charge at the Lagos Magistrate Court. That he never went on annual leave while he was working with the defendant. During cross-examination, PW1 stated that no pension account was opened because it was not allowed. Benedict Obaze testified on behalf of the defendant as DW1. He testified that he is the Managing Director of the defendant. He adopted his Written Statement on Oath dated 8/10/2012. During cross-examination DW1 stated that he has a branch of his business at No. 134 Awolowo Road, Ikoyi but he lives at 1004 Estate since June, 2012. That before then he lived at No. 41A Turnbull Road, Ikoyi now known as Oni-Ikoyi. That he moved in Oni-Ikoyi Road in November, 2002 or thereabout. That between 2010 and 2011 he was living at Turnbull Road. He admitted knowing Michael Inyi as one of the two staff he had at Ikeja branch who worked with the claimant. That he reported a criminal matter against the claimant and the said Michael Inyi that he is aware that the duo were charged at Tinubu Magistrate Court. That he gave evidence in the matter. DW1 stated that he testified in that case. That he knows one Ikechukwu Ali who was his staff but not sure of the date when he joined the company. He stated that he cannot remember one Roseline Eboh. That he knows one or two Azukas but do not remember their last names. That he knows one Ezenwane but do not know her last name. That Ezenwane joined the defendant sometime in 1997 and 1999 and left the organization in either 2003 or 2004 after she got married. He denied knowledge of one Chinyere Uba. That he knows one Aisha Nana Aliyu who was a staff of the defendant but could not remember one Sola Adeola. DW1 stated he knows Austin Obi who is his third cousin but that he only did his NYSC in the company. He stated that the claimant was discharged but not acquitted in the matter at the Magistrate Court. During re-examination, DW1 stated that Azuka worked for Revista and not for the defendant in this case and that Revista is a sister company to the defendant. The defendant thereafter closed its case. Parties were ordered to file their respective Final Written Addresses. The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 14/5/2013 and filed same date and reply on Points of Law dated 3/7/2013. The claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 19/6/2013 but filed on 20/6/2013. The Learned Counsel for the defendant raised issue for determination as follows: 1. Whether the defendant in this suit is the right party to be sued and whether the court has the jurisdiction to entertain and or/continue with the suit as presently constituted. Learned Counsel for the defendant raised two alternative issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant’s employment was terminated and/or wrongfully terminated by the defendant as to entitle the claimant to two months’ salary arrears and one month’s salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to pension in the circumstances of the suit in view of the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. On the first issue, Learned Counsel submitted that the defendant in this suit is not the right/proper party to be sued by the claimant and therefore the suit as presently constituted is fundamentally and incurably defective in material particulars that this court ought to decline further jurisdiction in this matter. He pointed out that the claimant filed this action against a supposed defendant Bevista Nigeria Limited whereas the company the claimant worked for prior to withdrawal of his services is known as Bevista Limited. That this fact as contained in paragraph 1 of the defendant witness Statement on Oath was not contradicted under cross-examination, therefore, remains admitted. He submitted that the law recognizes two categories of persons who can sue and be sued. That they are natural persons and other bodies having juristic personality. He submitted that if the law provides for a particular name by way of juristic or legal personality i.e., a party must sue and be sued in that name and no other. He relied on the case of Abubakar v. Yar’Adua [2008] 19 NWLR (pt. 1120) p. 1, Akindele v. Abiodun [2009] 11 NWLR (pt. 1152) p. 356. He submitted that a juristic person being a strict matter of law, the claimant cannot beg the court to accept the defendant who does not answer the name in the enabling law. He further submitted that the court cannot give judgment against a person not known to law. He urged the court to answer the issue in the negative and dismiss same. On the first alternative one, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any salary arrears and one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of employment. He pointed out that the leave of absence given to the claimant was not for an indefinite period and that the claimant’s letter of 31st January, 2011 to the defendant as well as his act of not reporting back to work after the period of his leave of absence constituted a repudiation of his contract of employment which repudiation was impliedly accepted by the defendant. He cited the case of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (without complete citation). He submitted that it is trite that an employer has the right to suspend an employee but as a general rule, upon resumption, pay his wages during the suspension period. He submitted that in the instant case the general rule of payment of wages during suspension is not applicable because the claimant had repudiated his employment on 31st January, 2011. He relied on the case of Idoniboye-Obu v. NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (pt. 805) p. 589 which held that an employee who complains of wrongful termination of his employment has the duty to show the court in what manner the wrong was done, and that it is not the duty of the employer as defendant to prove that the termination was not wrongful. He further submitted that the claimant has not only demonstrated that he is not a witness of truth by claiming salary he paid himself but has failed to show that it was the defendant who terminated his employment and that the termination was wrongful. He urged the court to answer this issue in the negative. On the second alternative issue, Learned Counsel submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any pension as claimed or interest as well as the consequential reliefs. He cited Section 1 (2) (b) of Pension Reform Act, 2004 and submitted that the said provision admits of no ambiguity. That the establishment of a contributory pension scheme is only mandatory for an organization in the private sector where such organization has five employees and more. He submitted that the claimant failed to prove that the defendant had 5 employees or above to mandate it to pay contributory pension to him. He further submitted that since the DW1’s testimony was neither impeached nor contradicted he stands as a witness of truth. He submitted that the claimant has not only failed to prove his allegations but also demonstrated that he is not a witness of truth. He further argued that a careful reading of the record of proceedings in the Magistrate Court sought to be tendered by the claimant does not show any contradiction between the testimony of the defendant in that matter and his testimony in the instant case. He added that it is clear that the said testimony of the DW1 in the Magistrate Court does not in any way contradict the defendant’s evidence in the instant case. That the Pension Reform Act is not meant to be used as a vindictive instrument or a means of setting old scores. He relied on Section 1 of the Act. He urged the court to answer this issue in the negative and hold that in the circumstances the claimant is not entitled to a declaration or order for payment of any pension interest or any other consequential reliefs. He further urged the court to dismiss the claims of the claimant. Learned Counsel for the claimant raised two issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether the claimant is entitled to a month salary in lieu of notice and arrears of salaries upon the termination of his appointment; and 2. Whether having regards to the provisions of Section 1 (2), Section 9 (1) (c) and Section 11 (5) of the Pension Reforms Act, Cap P4, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, the defendant is required to deduct and remit both monies or monies deducted and the Employer’s Contribution to the claimant’s Pensions Account. Arguing issue one, Learned Counsel submitted that a contract of employment between an employer and the employee establishing the terms and conditions of their relationship can be in writing or oral or implied. He placed reliance on the case of S.S Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (pt. 1118) p. 77. He submitted that a contract of employment existed between the parties and the terms of the contract are clearly set out in the letter of employment and acceptance thereof. He drew the attention of the court to Clause 20 of the company Policy Document which provides for payment in lieu of notice in the event of termination of employment. He submitted that by virtue of Section 11 (2) (d) of the Labour Act, Cap L1 LFN, 2004 that the notice required in respect of a person who is in employment for a period exceeding 5 years is one month. He pointed out that parties agreed that the claimant worked for the defendant for more than 7 years. He, therefore, submitted that relying on the Labour Act the claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice required, which is one month. Learned Counsel continued that a contract of employment can be terminated by implication, citing the case of Ifeta v. S.P.D.C (Nig) Ltd [2006] 8 NWLR (pt. 93) p. 85. He submitted that by the evidence the defendant terminated the employment of the claimant by implication. He, therefore, urged the court to hold that the termination was effective from 28th February, 2011. On issue two, Learned Counsel submitted that the Pension Reform Act, 2004 requires employers in both public and private sector to institute a contributory pension scheme for its employees. He pointed out that for it to do so, it must have five or more staff, citing Section 1 (2) of the said Act. Learned Counsel contented that the defendant has obligation to deduct and remit both the employee’s and employer’s pension contribution to Pension Fund Administrator. He further contented that the defendant had five or more staff in its employment and ought to have complied with the requirements of Section 1 (2) Section 9 (1) (c) and Section 11 (5) of Pension Reform Act. He submitted that the DW1 is not witness of truth for denying knowing Rosemary Eboh contrary to his evidence in the Magistrate Court. He urged the court to discountenance the denial of the DW1 and hold that the defendant has failed to comply with the provisions of the Pensions Reform Act. On the contention of the defendant that the claimant sued Bevista Nigeria Limited instead of Bevista Limited Learned Counsel submitted that the submission of the defendant is misconceived and amounts to a mis-statement of the law. He further submitted that the mistake in the name of the defendant amounts to a misnomer. He referred to the case of U.U.U v. Isuofia v. U.V. Union [2011] 6 NWLR (pt. 1243) p. 394, Idanre L.G v. A.G of Ondo State [2010] 14 NWLR (pt. 1214) p. 509. Learned Counsel added that this court has the power to amend the name from Bevista Nigeria Limited to Bevista Limited and he prayed the court to do so. He further relied on the case of Maersk Line v. Addide Investment Ltd [2002] 4 S.C (pt. 11) p. 157 to buttress the point that a misnomer does not oust the jurisdiction of the court. In its Reply on Points of Law, Learned Counsel submitted that the case of Ifeta v. S.P.D.C. Nig. Ltd cited by the claimant’s counsel on termination of contract of employment by implication does not support his case as the facts of that case is distinguished from the instant case. He submitted that a contract of employment is one that attracts duties and liabilities from both employer and the employee. That in Ifeta’s case, the implied at or repudiatory conduct emanated from the claimant himself that the law is that for an employee to succeed in an action for wrongful termination of employment he must prove the termination of employment by the employer and that such termination was wrongful. On the application of the claimant to amend the name of the defendant, the defendant submitted that naming a non-juristic person, as in this case, as a party is not a misnomer and that amending the same to substitute a juristic person is invalid. He concluded that the defendant on record in the instant case is not a person known to law. He urged the court to strike the defendant and dismiss this suit. I must state here that I have given the processes filed in this case a careful consideration. I have also carefully digested the authorities cited by counsel on both sides. I have equally perused carefully the argument and the issues formulated by counsel on behalf of the parties. In my view, the issues for determination are whether the claimant is entitled to pension in the circumstances of this case under the Pension Reform Act, 2004. In the first instance the defendant’s counsel urged this court to hold that the defendant as sued is not the proper party to be sued by the claimant. That the claimant sued Bevista Nigeria Limited instead of Bevista Limited. That Bevista Nigeria Limited is a non-juristic person and so cannot be sued. In resolving this issue, I note that the defendant did not attach any certificate of incorporation bearing the correct name so as to enable this court decipher that it was not sued in its name. In the absence of the defendant’s certificate of incorporation, I am unable to agree with the defendant on this ground. In any event, the defendant at the commencement of this suit entered appearance in the said name and equally file all its defence process bearing the name Bevista Nigeria Limited and participated in the trial before raising the issue. I am of the view that the defendant is estopped from raising that now and I so hold. As to whether the claimant’s employment was wrongly terminated, it is evidence that the claimant was sent on compulsory leave of absence by a letter dated 22nd January, 2011 for 60 days commencing 24th January to 21st March 2011 on the grounds that the investigation was ongoing concerning missing goods belonging to the defendant. On 31st January, 2011 the claimant wrote a letter to Mr. Benny Obaze as follows: 31/1/2011 Dear Mr. Benny Obaze, Good day, I am compelled to write you this letter base on the mutual understanding I have enjoyed with you these past eight years of our working together. I have served you faithfully within my capacity as a human being and with all sincerity of purpose. I have been diligent in my work and I feel I have fully discharged my duties to the best of abilities. Having acknowledged this, I must at this point honourably ask that if my services are to be terminated, my entitlement and emoluments and due me during all the years put in to serve the establishment, should be paid to me fully in accordance with the rule of equity and fair play. This I feel, is my right I am entitled to. I wish the establishment more prosperous year ahead. Thanks. Yours faithfully, Kevin O. Amadasun It is clear from the above letter written by the claimant that he feared that his employment might be terminated by the defendant having suspended him from service. It is also clear that the claimant expressed his intention to recover his entitlement from the defendant if his employment was to be terminated. The claimant puts it this way, “if my service are to be terminated…”. This does not seem to me to indicate that the claimant was ending his relationship with the defendant. The claimant’s fear was further heightened when he was on 4th April, 2011 arraigned before the Magistrate Court of Lagos State on charges of stealing and obtaining goods by false pretence. From the evidence before this court, the claimant did not at any time terminate his employment with the defendant rather the defendant took the claimant’s letter of 31st January 2011 as an indication of termination. Following the claimant’s letter dated 31st January, 2011, the claimant was asked to return all the defendant’s company property in his possession signaling the termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant. This position is confirmed further by the defendant’s Solicitors letter dated 1st March, 2011. Consequently, the claimant’s employment was terminated when he was requested to return the defendant’s property in his possession and I so hold. Now, the claimant’s employment letter dated 15th November, 2003 made no provision for length of notice to be issued when a party intends to terminate the contract. Rather the defendants’ company policy in clause 20 provides for notice or payment in lieu of notice for termination but was silent on the length of notice. If follows from the foregoing that the defendant did not give the claimant notice before his employment was terminated. Consequently, the termination of the claimant’s employment was wrongful. Section 11 (1) of Labour Act provides for one month notice where the contract has continued for more than five years. It is clear that the claimant was employed in November, 2003 and his contract terminated in 2011 which is about eight years of service. Therefore, the claimant ought to have been given one month notice before his employment was terminated. From the evidence before me, no such notice was given to the claimant. Consequently I hold that the claimant is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice. The claimant attached his payment voucher up to December 2010 to buttress his bi-monthly salary of N34,000.00 which amounts to N70,000.00 per month. I hereby resolve this issue in favour of the claimant. Concerning issue of pension, the claimant argued the he is entitled to his contributory pension of 15% of his remuneration from 1st July 2004 to 28th February, 2011. On the other hand, the defendant argued that the defendant did not qualify to contribute pension under the Pension Reform Act, 2004 as it did not have up to 5 employees or more in its company. The claimant thereafter argued that the defendant had 5 or more employees to make it liable to pay pension under the Act. Section 1(2) of the Pension Reform Act, Cap P.4 LFN, 2004 provides as follows: Subject to section 8 of this Act, the Scheme shall apply to all employees in the Public Service of the Federation, Federal Capital Territory and the Private sector – (a) in the case of the Public Sector, who are in employment; and (b) in the case of the Private Sector, who are in employment in an organization in which there are five or more employees. In his evidence under cross-examination the DWI admitted knowing one Ezewane but that she left the Defendant organization in 2003 or 2004 after she got married. He denied knowing Chinyere Uba, Sola Adeola and Roseline Eboh. The DWI also stated that one Austin Obi is his 3rd cousin and that he did his NYSC in the defendant company. He equally added that Aisha Nana Aliyu used to be his staff, and that Azuka worked for Bevista a sister company to the defendant in this suit. Granted that the claimant listed eight (8) names plus himself as employees of the defendant, there is no further evidence before the court to suggest that those people work for the defendant or are still in the service of the defendant. The claimant failed to adduce further concrete evidence or call the said staff as witness to drive home his contention that the defendant has 5 or more staff in its organization as to make it liable to comply with the provisions of Section 1 (2) of the Pension Reform Act. The law is that he who assert must prove. See Nig. Army v. Yakubu ([013] 2 – 3 M.J.S.C (pt. iv) p. 1 at p. 15, Okubuke v. Oyagbola [1990] 4 NWLR (pt. 147) p. 72, Osaware v. Ezeiruka [1978] 6 – 7 SC p. 135, Odukwe v. Ogunbiyi [1998] 8 NWLR (pt. 561) p. 339. Having held that the claimant failed to prove that the defendant has 5 or more staff in its employment, I hold that the defendant is not bound by section 1 (2) (b) of the Pension Reform Act. The claimant’s claim for pension hereby fails. Now having held that the defendant is not bound to comply with Section 1 (2) of the Pension Reform Act, It therefore means that the claimant is not entitle to any form of gratuity or pension as the case may be. And since the defendant has no gratuity nor pension policy in its conditions of service for its staff, it means that even though the claimant has worked for about 8 years, he will have nothing to go home with. This is certainly an unfair labour practice. I therefore find and hold such practice as unfair, unjust which should not be allowed in a society yearning for social justice. A system that allows such injustice will certainly head towards anarchy and lawlessness. In the circumstance and on the authority of Sections 254 C (1) (f) of the 1999 Constitution as amended and Section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, I hereby award the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira as compensation to the claimant. For the avoidance of doubt I order as follows: 1. The defendant shall pay the sum of N70,000.00 (Seventy thousand Naira) to the claimant as one month salary in lieu of notice of termination. 2. The claimant is not entitled to pension as claimed. 3. The defendant shall within 30 days from the date of this Judgment pay the sum of Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira as compensation to the claimant. Failure to pay the said sum within that period will attract 10% interest thereafter. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge