Thankgod Albert v Leisure Investment Ltd
| Judge | Honourable Justice Sanusi Kado |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Respondent | Leisure Investment Ltd |
| Appellant | Thankgod Albert |
| Docket Number | NICN/ABJ/382/2017 |
| Counsel | Ofem Obeta, Esq; for the Claimant. |
| Court | National Industrial Court (Nigeria) |
1. This judgment was initially fixed to be delivered on 2/4/2020, however, due the lockdown as a result of the outbreak of coronavirus COVID -19 the judgment could not be delivered on that date till today.
2. The claimant approached this Court via complaint dated 22/12/2017 and filed 27/12/2017. 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 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.
b. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment negates all agreement reached between the Claimant’s Union and Defendant and therefor wrongful, null and void.
c. A DECLARATION that the purported termination amounts to a breach of agreement.
d. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant with immediate effect to pay the Claimant all his annual leave allowances which has been due from the time of employment till the purported termination of appointment.
e. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the Defendant to pay 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 and when his appointment was purportedly terminated.
f. AN ORDER of this Honourable court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N15, 000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) only for the severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged them into.
g. AND FOR ANY FURTHER ORDERS as this Honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
3. The Defendant entered appearance on 03/01/2018 and with leave of court granted on 22/02/2018, the defendant’s statement of defence dated 26/01/2018 was filed on the 27/01/2018. The statement of defence was accompanied by a written statement on Oath, Defendant’s list of witnesses, Defendant’s list of documents, photocopies of document to be relied on at the trial.
4. The Claimant opened his case on 28/06/2018, wherein he testified as CW1. After adopting his witness statement on oath, CW1, tendered in the course of giving evidence in chief 7 documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits CW1A1-2, CW1B1-12, CW1C1-3, CW1D, CW1E1-2, CW1F and CWG. Another document was tendered in evidence in course of cross-examination; the document was admitted in evidence as exhibit CWH. The claimant also adopted his witness statement on Oath as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case.
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 on 5th of January 2009 as a trainee dealer. That there has been an on-going tussle between the defendant and workers of the defendant, one of such dispute which arose was mediated upon by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment in which a communiqué was reached between the parties. CW testified that the Defendant had made frequent deductions and meant for remittance to Pension Funds Managers, but the said deductions were not reflected in the pension Managers account and were never remitted. 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 the Defendant has a written disciplinary guide which was never complied with by the Defendant and that he was never given any opportunity whatsoever to defend himself. The claimant further stated that when the Defendants came up with the idea of laying off staff, the Union representing the employees of the Defendant had come up with some conditions in line with the labour laws, however despite the agreement between all parties to enforce a 5% cut in salaries in place of mass lay off, defendant breached the agreement and still laid off the claimant in December 2016. 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 is 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. The Claimant prays the Court to grant his reliefs as stated on his complaint.
6. Under cross-examination, CW1 testified that he signed exhibit CW1B1-12 on 1/7/14, and that his relationship with the Defendant is regulated by this document. CW1 testified that he was never paid any leave allowance and he did not acknowledge any payments and the signature on the document shown to him was his signature. CW1 testified that indeed it was true that his salary was paid through his GTB; it is through his GT BANK account number 0024523278. He stated that his passport photograph was pasted by the defendants. CW1 further testified that it is not correct that they had several meetings with defendant before the payment of redundancy and that he cannot remember paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27. He testified that he did not work for the Defendant from December 2016 to date.
7. The Defendant opened its case on 05/03/2019 wherein Hafis Olayinka Adenekan the General Manager of the Defendant company testified as DW1, He tendered 7 documents in evidence before the Court and the said documents admitted in evidence were marked as exhibits DWA1-2, DWB1-2, DWC1-3, DWD, DWE, CWF and DW1G. While Bloosan Renigan testified as DW2 on 23/9/2019 upon the subpoena issued by the Court, she was a staff of ARM pension. The witness tendered two documents in evidence they were admitted as exhibits DW21-6.
8. In the evidence of DW1 it was stated that the claimant was affected by redundancy due to the in ability of the Defendant 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. DW1, further testified that the Defendant proposed a 10% (Ten Percent) 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 Percent) 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 being a total sum of N193.168 (One Hundred and Ninety-Three Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Eighty Naira) only. The above sum covers N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only being the Claimant’s 3 Months Gross Salary and N43,168.00 (Forty-Three Thousand One Hundred and Sixty-Eight Naira) only being the Claimant’s entitlement 17 Public holidays 2 PH Days payment. DW1, 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. DW1, urged the court to reject the claimant’s suit as it is malicious and vexatious.
9. Under cross examination DW1 testified that he joined the Defendant in October, 2008 and that he was posted to Lagos. He stated that the claimant was entitled to leave and that the Defendant Company gives annual leave. He testified that the claimant joined the company between 2008 and 2009. He testified that after redundancy they pasted claimant’s passport on the wall of the premises. He further testified that they indeed took their grievances to Ministry of Labour. A document was shown to DW1 and he acknowledged same, the said document was tendered in evidence and admitted as exhibit DWE- LETTER OF REDUNDANCY DATED 22/12/16.
10. Under re-examination DW1, testified that redundancy is not termination.
11. John Abah Augustine, Esq; counsel for the defendant filed his final written address dated 12/11/19 and adopted same on 21/1/2020, in the said address counsel outlined 2 issues for determination by the court. The said issues were;
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 issue 1; Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim against the Defendant which will entitle the Claimant to the reliefs sought? Counsel contended that none of the documents tendered by the claimant supports, let alone establishes, the case of the Claimant and that the Claimant’s allegation that his appointment was terminated by the Defendant as reflected in the claims before this Court particularly paragraph A, B, C, D and F are spurious, specious, misleading and unfounded. In support of this contention counsel relied on the cases of FEDERAL COLLEGE OF EDUCATION V AKINYEMI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT. 465) PG 1791 PARAG. 9 and ENECHUKWU V NNAMANI (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 492) PG 1093 PARAG. 12. Counsel further argued that the Claimant himself under cross examination admitted knowing that the exercise carried out by the Defendant was a Redundancy and not Termination as contained in...
To continue reading
Request your trial