Rahman Adewale v Leisure Investment Ltd
| Judge | Honourable Justice Sanusi Kado |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Respondent | Leisure Investment Ltd |
| Appellant | Rahman Adewale |
| Docket Number | NICN/ABJ/29/2018 |
| Court | National Industrial Court (Nigeria) |
1. This judgment was to be delivered on 2/4/2020, but could not be delivered due to lockdown as a result of coronavirus pandemic outbreak.
2. The Claimant approached this Court via a general form of complaint dated 15/01/2018 and filed 26/01/2018. The complaint was accompanied with Statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents, and photocopies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The Claimant vide this action is seeking for the following reliefs;-
a. DECLARATION that the purported termination of appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful at law and contrary to the condition of service of the Defendant and therefore null and void and of no legal consequence.
b. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful at law and contrary to the conditions of service of the Defendant.
c. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment amounts to a breach of contract and negates all agreements reached between Claimant’s union and Defendant and therefore wrongful, null and void.
d. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant with immediate effect to pay the Claimant his annual leave allowances assessed at the rate of 10% of Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996 which was due from 2007 till December 2016 before the purported termination of appointment.
e. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his pension funds 8% of basic salary deducted from 2007 till December 2016 and 12% of the Defendant’s mandatory pension contribution withheld by her since the Claimant period throughout the Claimant’s employment.
f. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his entitlements, gratuity, severance package, all benefits flowing from such termination and all pension funds deducted from the Claimant’s salary from the time of his employment till December 2016 when his appointment was purportedly terminated.
g. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all salaries withheld from January 2017 till the final determination of this suit. IN THE ALTERNATIVE; AN ORDER of this Honourable Court, directing the Defendant to pay all the Claimant’s redundancy benefit to which the Claimant is entitled to.
h. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant thee sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) only as nominal damages for the severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged him into.
i. AND FOR ANY FURTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
3. After exchange of pleadings, the case went to trial, with the Claimant testifying in proof of his case. While the Defendant called two witness to testify in defence.
4. The Claimant opened his case on 14/01/2019 wherein he testified as CL. CL after identifying his witness statement on oath, adopted it as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case. In the course of giving his evidence in chief, seven documents were sought to be tendered in evidence. Five out of the seven documents were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits CL1-2 (photocopy of contract of employment dated 1/7/14, CLB1-15 (document titled strictly private & confidential), CLC (photocopy of communiqué issued on 17/12/13), CLD (photocopy of communiqué signed on 22/3/16, CLE1-2 (photocopy of letter of retrenchment), CLF (Employee Handbook). While two documents were rejected and they were marked tendered and rejected.
5. From the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath and the oral testimony, the case of the Claimant was that he was employed by the Defendant Company on 1st of July 2010 as a croupier and was later promoted to the position of a Dealer/Inspector in 2014. CL testified that there has been an on-going tussle between the employees and workers, one of such dispute which arose between the Defendant and Claimant was even mediated upon by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment in which a communiqué was reached between the parties. The Claimant further testified that in 2016 the Defendant notified the Claimant and invited its union members for a collective bargain, and at the said meeting the issue of redundancy was raised. The Claimant stated that when a 2nd meeting came up and the Claimant’s branch union President, General secretary, vice president, Deputy president they proffered solutions and gave conditions for any effective redundancy to take place. CL testified that the Defendant had made frequent deductions and called them pension funds and they were deducted at 8% of Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996.00 and that the Defendant was also mandatorily contributing 12% of the said basic salary per month and that yet all the said sums were not reflected in the pension Managers account and were never remitted. Claimant further testified that he has never been paid his annual leave allowance which is 10% of his basic salary. The Claimant stated that he had reported to work as usual on the 22nd of December 2016 but was denied access to his duty post without explanation. Claimant testified that in view of the abrupt redundancy he reported to the Federal Ministry of Labour and productivity that invited parties for a collective bargain. Claimant testified that the result of the said meeting between the Defendants, the Federal Ministry of Labour and the Union was an agreement by the Defendant to suspend the intended retrenchment. The Claimant testified that the Defendant’s sudden decision to retrench the Claimant came as a surprise. The Claimant stated that in line with the Defendant’s handbook, he had never been issued any form of warning in the past to warrant his termination and that no reason was ever stated for the said termination. The Claimant believes that his termination was merely done out of malice as his termination are against the rules and laws of Nigeria and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and that the action of the Defendant has plunged him into severe hardship and psychological trauma.
6. The Claimant is praying the Court to grant his reliefs as stated on his complaint.
7. Under cross-examination, CL testified that the excuse was redundancy. He testified that his relationship with the Defendant is regulated by exhibit CLA1-2. He testified that he had signed the documents in his office, he further testified that exhibit CLD is agreement between labour and management. He testified that he objected to the redundancy and that he has no formal contribution in setting up the Defendants. He further testified that ARM pension was his pension fund administrator and that not all his entitlements were paid and that is why he decided to come to the court. Claimant testified that from December 2016 he has not done anything.
8. The Defendant called one Mr. Hafis Adenekan Olayinka, who testified on 06/03/2019, as DW in the defence of the Defendant. DW after identifying his witness statement on oath adopted same as his testimony in this suit. In the course of the hearing documents were tendered and admitted in evidence they are: Exhibits DWA1-2 (GT Bank Onlice Tranfer Advice, dated 15/8/17), DWB1-3 (CTC of GT Bank On-line Transfer Advice dated 30/1/17), DWC1-3 (Certificate of compliance with section 84 of the Evidence Act) DWC1-2, DWD1-5 (RE: Urgent Request for Statement of Accounts).
9. DW testified that the Claimant was affected by redundancy because the Defendant was unable to meet its obligations based on lack of patronage of its Casino business and also, for lack of patronage the Defendant was forced to shut down 4 (Four) out of its 9 (Nine) Business Tables at the Abuja office and the Claimant was aware of the challenges faced by the Defendant occasioned by lack of patronage of its business and that based on the circumstances the Defendant was unable to meet its obligation to its Landlord as rent was constantly in arrears for lack of patronage. DW further testified that the Defendant proposed a 10% (Ten Per cent) salary cut because of the Economic challenges being encountered by the Defendant but the proposal was rejected by the Claimant. The Claimant insisted on a 5% (Five per cent) deduction which was not sustainable by the Defendant. The Claimant was invited by the Defendant but the Claimant refused to accept his letter of redundancy. However, the Claimant’s entitlements were paid to him through his usual Bankers, Guaranty Trust Bank in the sum of N165, 000.00 (One Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Naira) only being 3 Months Gross Salary. The sum of N45, 000.00 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira) only being for Public holiday payment. DW testified that the Claimant does not deserve any of the reliefs sought as its redundancy policy was not borne out of malice and was carried out in good faith. DW urged the court to reject the Claimant’s suit as it is malicious and vexatious.
10. Under cross examination DW1 testified that exhibit DWB1-3 is evidence of payment and that the Claimant’s leave was paid together with his salary he testified that he joined the Defendants in October, 2008 and that he has been in Lagos.
11. The counsel for the Defendant, John Abah Augustine; Esq. filed final written address of the Defendant on 9/7/2019, and adopted same on the 21/01/2020 as his argument in the matter. Counsel outlined 2 issues for determination by the court;
1. Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim against the Defendant which will entitle the Claimant to the reliefs sought?
2. The effect of a party who fail to adduce reliable and credible evidence to prove his case in Court.
12. In arguing the first issue; Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim against the Defendant which will entitle...
To continue reading
Request your trial