Download PDF
The claimant brought this application dated 23rd January, 2014 brought pursuant to Order 21 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 praying the court for the following reliefs: 1. An order that the respondents transfer funds/assets meant for payment of pension for existing employees to a licensed Pension Fund Custodian. 2. An order to transfer the accrued Pension Rights of their employees to the respective Retirement Savings Account (RSA) of the entitled employees. 3. An order directing the respondents to provide Group Life Insurance Policy for all the employees of the respondents. 4. An order that the respondents pay their accrued pension entitlement of all the employees. 5. And for such further order or orders as this court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case. The application is supported by a 10 paragraph affidavit sworn to by one Muhammed Muhammed, a legal practitioner in the law firm of D.C Enwelum & Co. The deponent stated that on the 28/11/2013 the court entered judgment against the defendant/respondent attached as PENCOMA. That from the depositions contained in CW1 Written Statement on Oath, the court is satisfied that the claimant has proved that the 3 defendant companies failed to discharge their obligation as required under Section 1 (2) of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. That the court further declared that the respondents did not open a Retired Savings Account (RSA) with any Pension Fund Administrator of its choice to be funded with the monthly pension deducted from its employees’ salaries and its own contribution which ought to be remitted within 7 working days to the Pension Fund Custodian (PFC). That the court again declared in the said judgment that from the evidence before it the respondents did not transfer any fixed asset meant for payment of pension for their existing or retired employees to the Pension Fund Custodian. He deposed that the court declared that the respondents did not transfer the accrued Pension Rights to their respective Retirement Savings Account as each employee is entitled to. That the court declared that none of the 3 respondents provided Group Life Insurance Policy for their employees as required by the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. He further stated that in the Statement of Facts at paragraph 8 (6) and claimant’s Witness Statement paragraph 6 (a – e) the claimant clearly made claims for an order of compliance by the respondents. That there was no challenge to the evidence of CW1. That at page 8 of the Exhibit PENCOM A, the court omitted due to inadvertence to grant the claims contained in paragraph 6 (a – e). He stated that the claims contained in paragraph 6 (a – e) are consequential orders which were claimed in the evidence of CW1 and flow from the declarations made at page 8 of the said Judgment Exhibit “PENCOM A”. That the respondents will not be prejudiced from the grant of this application and that it is in the interest of justice to grant the said claims in paragraph 6 (a – e) of CW1 which are consequential to the judgment of this court. In his Written Address, Learned Counsel for the claimant applicant raised lone issue for determination, “Whether this court can grant the consequential orders sought for in their application.” Learned Counsel referred the court to paragraph 4 – 10 of the affidavit in support and Section 1 (2) and Section 8 of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 to submit that the respondents were under statutory obligations to pay the pension contribution of their employees. He submitted that the judgment of the court as contained in page 8 of the said judgment has declared the respondents liable under the Pension Reform Act. He also referred the court to Order 21 Rule 4 of the Rules of this court which he argues empowers this court to make consequential orders at the time of delivery of the judgment. That paragraphs 5 – 10 of the affidavit in support are to the effect that it was an inadvertence of the court at the time of the judgment not to have granted the orders prayed for in this application. Learned Counsel submitted that consequential judgment or order is one that necessarily flows naturally from and is inevitably consequent on it, and that it gives effect to the judgment already given to make it complete. He placed reliance on the cases of Akinbo Bola v. Plisson Fisko (Nig) Ltd & 2 Ors [1991] 1 NSCC Vol. 22 (pt. 1) p. 105 at p. 188, Wahab Kolawole Ishola & 40 Ors v. Alh. Karimu Folorunsho & 1022 [2010] 13 NWLR (pt. 1210) p. 169 at p. 192, International Beer & Beverage Ind. Ltd & 1 Or v. Mutunchi Co. Ltd [2012] 6 NWLR (pt. 1297) p. 487 at p. 528. He also referred the court to the case of Alhaji Muhammadu Mai Gari Dinyadi & 1 Or v. INEC & 2 Ors [2011] 18 NWLR (pt. 1224) p. 154. Learned Counsel also referred the court to paragraphs 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of affidavit in support as well as Exhibit PENCOM A and submits that the prayers in the application were contained in the claims and evidence before the court and were meant to be consequential to the declaratory orders made by the court. That the prayers sought in this application are not only related to the claim as granted but will give effect to the declaratory order of this court. Counsel urged this court to grant this application as prayed. On his part, the Learned Counsel for the defendants/respondents did not oppose this application. I have carefully considered the application of the claimant/applicant, the submission of counsel and the authorities relied upon. In my view, the issue for determination is as formulated by the claimant’s counsel, that is, “whether this court can grant the consequential order sought for in this application”. This historical background of this suit is that the applicant herein sued 16 companies as defendant because they failed to comply with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2004 in that they failed to deduct and remit monthly pension contributions of their staff under Sections 1 (2), 9 (3), 11, 12 (1) (b) and 46 of the said Act. During the trial of the suit, the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 15th and 16th defendant companies complied with the provisions of the Act. Consequently, the claimant applied for the names of the defendants who complied to be struck out as defendants. The 4th, 6th and 13th defendants who are now the defendants/respondents to this case neither did they file memorandum of appearance nor defended the action. In the end, the court delivered judgment in favour of the claimant/applicant herein. To determine this application it is important to reproduce the claims of the claimant/applicant as follows: 1. A declaration that the defendants/companies has failed and refused to discharge its obligations as required of it under Section 1 (2) of the Pensions Reform Act, 2004, in that it failed to (a) Open a Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with any Pension Fund Administrator of its choice. The said Retirement Savings Account (RSA) is to be funded with monthly pensions to be deducted from the employee’s salary and the contribution of the defendant company in the following ratio: (i) A minimum of 7½ per cent of the employee’s monthly salary. (ii) A minimum of 7½ per cent of the employee’s salary as the company’s contribution, the aggregate of which shall be remitted within 7 working days to the Pension Fund Custodian. (b) Transfer any fund/assets meant for payment of pensions for existing and retired employees to Pension Fund Custodian. (c) Transfer the accrued Pension Rights of its employees to their respective Retirement Savings Account (RSA) as each employee is entitled to. (d) Provide Group Life Insurance Policy for all the defendants’ employees. 5. A declaration that the failure of the defendants companies contravenes Section 85 and 90 of the Pension Reform Act, 2004. 6. An order of court that the defendants pay the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) to the claimant as well as pay the pension entitlement of all the employees from the date of its commencement of business until judgment of this court to the claimant. On the 28th November, 2013 the court delivered judgment against the three defendants who failed to comply with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. The court held as follows: 1. I hold an declare that the three defendants companies failed to discharge their obligations as required under Section 1 (2) of the Pension Reform Act in this instance. 2. I further declare that none of the three defendants open a Retirement Savings Account (RSA) with any Pension Fund Administrator with the monthly pensions deducted from their employees’ salaries and their own contributions and neither did they remit any deduction within 7 working days to the Pension Fund Custodian. 3. Again I declare that none of the three defendants transferred and fund/assets meant for payment of pensions for their existing and retired employees to Pension Fund Custodian. I also declare that the three defendants did not transfer the accrued Pension Rights of their employees to their respective Retirement Savings Account (RSA) as each employee is entitled to. In addition, I declare that none of the three defendants provided Group Life Insurance Policy for their employees as required by the Act. 4. However, in respect of the second and third reliefs the claimant prayed the court to convict the defendants of criminal offences, the claimant failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt as required under Section 135 of Evidence Act, 2011. The reliefs are accordingly refused and the defendants are hereby discharged of the alleged offences. It is clearly shown from the judgment of the court that the court held that the defendants/respondents failed to open Retirement Savings Account for their employees as well as failed to deduct and remit their monthly pension contributions into their Retirement Savings Account (RSA) 7 days after their salaries were paid. In its judgment, the court did not make specific orders against the defendants/applicants to comply with the provisions of the Pension Reform Act. In other words, there was no mandating order of the court directing the defendants to transfer the funds or assets meant for the payment of pension of their employees to a licensed Pension Fund Custodian or to transfer the accrued pension rights of their employees to the respective Retirement Savings Account of their employees. I have earlier observed that the defendants/respondents did not oppose this application, therefore, admitted the averments in the affidavit in support of this application. This court is called upon to make consequential orders pursuant to the judgment of the court. The apex court examined the nature of consequential order in the case of Ishola v. Folorunso [2010] 13 NWLR (pt. 1210) p. 169 at pp. 192 paras G – H; 197 paras A – E when it held: “A consequential order is an order which gives effect to a judgment or order to which it is consequential. It is directly traceable to or flowing from that other judgment or order duly prayed for and made consequent upon the reliefs claimed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, any consequential order whether made by a trial court or an appellate court must be incidental and flow directly and naturally from those reliefs. It is an offshoot of the main claim/relief sought and owes its existence to the main claim/relief. It gives effect to the judgment already given, not by granting a fresh and unclaimed or unproven relief …”. See also I.B.B Ind. Ltd v. Mutunci Co. (Nig) Ltd [2012] 6 NWLR (pt. 1297) p. 487 at p. 528 para. F, Akinbobola v. Plisson Fisko (Nig) Ltd [1991] 1 NWLR (pt. 167) p. 270 at p. 288 para B – C, Jekpe v. Alokwe [2001] 8 NWLR (pt. 715) p. 252 at p. 265 paras G – H, Inakoju v. Adeleke [2007] 4 NWLR (pt. 1025) p. 427 at pp. 708 709 para F – B. It is obvious from this application that the prayers being sought will definitely give effect to the judgment of the court delivered on the 28th November, 2013. The reliefs sought are also naturally incidental to the decision of the court. In other words, the reliefs are inevitably consequent upon the judgment of the court without which the judgment would be ineffectual. I hold that there is merit in this application and grant this application. I therefore, make the following orders: 1. The defendants/respondents are hereby ordered to transfer funds/assets meant for payment of pension for existing employees to a licensed Pension Fund Custodian. 2. The defendants/respondents are ordered to transfer the accrued Pension Right of their employees to their respective Retirement Savings Account (RSA) of the entitled employees. 3. The defendants/respondents are ordered to provide Group Life Insurance Policy for all the employees of the defendants/respondents. 4. The defendants/respondents are ordered to pay accrued pension entitlement of all the employees. Ruling is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu Fishim Judge