IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HER LADYSHIP HON. JUSTICE O.A. OBASEKI-OSAGHAE

 

DATE: JULY 28, 2022                                          SUIT NO. NICN/ABJ/365/2019

 

BETWEEN                                

1.                  MR. PHILIP NICKSON

2.                  ISAH SAMSON

3.                  MADUKWE NNENNA TINA

4.                  FATUNWASE OLALEKAN

5.                  UMOH OLETUS RICHARD

6.                  NEGE ELIZABETH

7.                  OKORIE CHIKAODIRI

8.                  UKWELA O. JOSEPHINE                                                              CLAIMANTS

9.                  ABUBAKAR SADIQ

10.             UWALAKA-EMMANUEL ESTHER CHIDIMA

11.             ABIGAIL SHEHU

12.             NKWO-OPARA KWERECHI KELVIN

13.             BLESSSING ADA ADIKWU

14.             AGBO DAVID COMFORT

15.             DANIEL DORCAS

 

AND

NTA - STAR TV NETWORK LIMITED ……………………………..DEFENDANT                        

REPRESENTATION

Teslim Agboola for Claimant, with A Muhammed-Lawal, K.T.Gumai.

Ernest Nwoye for Defendant, with Patrick Agu, Bukola Oluwatayo.

                                                      JUDGEMENT

Introduction and Claims

[1] The Claimants filed this complaint against the Defendant on November, 29, 2019 together with the accompanying originating processes seeking the following reliefs:

I.          A DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimants’ appointment by the Defendant on the ground of redundancy is a mere subterfuge employed by the Defendant to deny the Claimants their full disengagement benefits and entitlements thus, amounts to unfair labour practice.

II.        A DECLARATION that the Claimants are entitled to be paid one (1) year salaries each as their redundancy benefits which is in accordance with prevailing Nigerian Labour Law.

III.       A DECLARATION that the Claimants are entitled to be paid their bonus for the year 2018 in the sum of N697,884.92 (Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Naira Two Kobo) only having worked up to October, 2018.

IV.       A MANDATORY ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimant their outstanding redundancy benefits totaling the sum of N9,068,397.37 (Nine Million, Sixty-Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety -Seven Naira Thirty -Seven Kobo) in the following particulars contained in the table below:

 

S/N

 

NAMES

 

OUTSTANDING REDUNDANCY

 

1.

MR. PHILIP NICKSON

N758,999.97

2.

ISAH SAMSON

N701,786.7

3.

MADUKWE NNENNA TINA

N654,398.64

4.

FATUNWASE OLALEKAN

N669,509.55

5.

UMOH OLETUS RICHARD

N666,000

6.

NEGE ELIZABETH

N758,999.97

7.

OKORIE CHIKAODIRI

N617.967

8.

UKWELA O. JOSEPHINE

N701,789.94

9.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ

N650,999.97

10

UWALAKA-EMMANUEL ESTHER CHIDIMA

N634,231.53

11.

ABIGAIL SHEHU

N481,904.7

12.

NKWO-OPARA KWERECHI KELVIN

N481,904.7

13.

BLESSSING ADA ADIKWU

N481,904.7

14.

AGBO DAVID COMFORT

N404,000

15.

DANIEL DORCAS

N404,000

 

TOTAL

N9,068,397.37

 

 V.        A MANDATORY ORDER compelling the Defendant to pay the Claimants their bonus for the year of 2018 in the sum of N697,884.92 (Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty-Four Naira Two Kobo) in the following particulars:

 

S/N

NAMES

AMOUNT (N)

1.

MR. PHILIP NICKSON

N61,687.16

2.

ISAH SAMSON

N59,872.50

3.

MADUKWE NNENNA TINA

N48,650.00

4.

FATUNWASE OLALEKAN

N50,620.00

5.

UMOH OLETUS RICHARD

N60,239.00

6.

NEGE ELIZABETH

N61,687.16

7.

OKORIE CHIKAODIRI

N69,765.10

8.

UKWELA O. JOSEPHINE

N36,000.00

9.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ

N42,334.00

10.

UWALAKA-EMMANUEL ESTHER CHIDIMA

N52,295.00

11.

ABIGAIL SHEHU

N31,235.00

12.

NKWO-OPARA KWERECHI KELVIN

N39,910.00

13.

BLESSSING ADA ADIKWU

N31,113.00

14.

AGBO DAVID COMFORT

N26,224.00

15.

DANIEL DORCAS

N26,253.00

 

TOTAL

N697,884.92

 

VI.       ALTERNATIVE RELIEF NO. VI. A MANDATORY ORDER compelling the Defendant to convey negotiation meeting with the Claimants to be supervised by Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) to determine the amount to be paid to the Claimants as their redundancy benefits in accordance with the prevailing Nigerian Labour Laws.

VII.      A SUM OF N5,000,000(Five Million Naira) as damages for the unfair labour practice meted out to the Claimants and for the psychological, emotional and financial trauma the Claimants were subjected to as a result of the Defendant’s failure, neglect and refusal to pay their full redundancy benefits and entitlements.

VIII.    AN INTEREST of 25% per annum on the total judgement sum as may be awarded by this Court from the date of judgement until same is finally liquidated which should be shared by the Claimants according to their entitlements.

IX.       The cost of this suit.

[2] The defendant filed its statement of defence, a counter claim together with the accompanying processes on 23rd December 2019. The defendant counter claimed as follows:

A.     The sum of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) only as reasonable Attorney’s fee.

B.     The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million) Naira only.

The claimant filed a reply and a defence to the counter claim on 7th February 2020.

Case of the Claimants

[3] The case of the claimants on the pleadings is that the defendant employed them at different times by their letters of appointment. The claimants stated that notwithstanding that they were made to work under unconducive environment, they were diligent, dedicated and committed to their work during the subsistence of their employment with the defendant and they were never found wanting, or guilty of any misconduct in their duties. The claimants averred that their appointments were terminated by the defendant on the ground of redundancy by letters dated 15/10/2019 and titled ‘Notification of Redundancy’. The claimants stated that prior to the termination of their employment on the ground of redundancy, the defendant contrary to her reason for disengaging them was doing well as a going concern and they were all actively engaged and very busy.

[4] The claimants stated that based on the terms and conditions of their employment, and in line with best international labour practice, they were entitled to be paid redundancy benefits of a sum equal to one year basic salary or an amount to be mutually determined by them and the defendant in case of termination of their appointment on the ground of redundancy. The claimants stated that the defendant without a prior agreement between them, and without due regard to the terms and conditions contained in her Employee Handbook as well as best international labour practice, unilaterally came up with an amount to be paid to each of them as their redundancy benefits. The claimants averred that the defendant paid them various amounts of money as their redundancy benefits; ranging from three (3) months basic salaries, two (2) months basic salaries and one (1) month basic salary depending on their years in service, the particulars of which are provided in the table below:

S/N

NAMES

BASIC SALARY

NO. OF MONTH

AMOUNT PAID AS REDUNDANCY BENEFITS

1.

MR. PHILIP NICKSON

N84,333.33

3

N253.000.00

2.

ISAH SAMSON

N77,976.30

3

N233,928.90

3.

MADUKWE NNENNA TINA

N72,710.96

3

N218,132.86

4.

FATUNWASE OLALEKAN

N74,389.95

3

N223,169.86

5.

UMOH OLETUS RICHARD

N74,000

3

N222,000

6.

NEGE ELIZABETH

N84,333.33

3

N253,000

7.

OKORIE CHIKAODIRI

N68,663

3

N205,989

8.

UKWELA O. JOSEPHINE

N77,976.66

3

N233,930

9.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ

N72,333.33

3

N217,000

10.

UWALAKA-EMMANUEL ESTHER CHIDIMA

N70 470.17

3

N211,410.50

11.

ABIGAIL SHEHU

N48, 190.47

2

N96,380

12.

NKWO-OPARA KWERECHI KELVIN

N48, 190.47

2

N96, 380

13.

BLESSING ADA ADIKWU

N48, 190.47

2

N96,380

14.

AGBO DAVID COMFORT

N38, 000

1 PLUS

N52,000

15.

DANIEL DORCAS

N38, 000

1 PLUS

N52,000

 

The Claimants stated that they are entitled to be paid the outstanding balance of their redundancy benefit totaling the sum of N9,068,397.37 (Nine Million, Sixty-Eight Thousand, Three Hundred and Ninety-Seven Naira, Thirty-Seven Kobo)

[5] The claimants stated that the defendant’s reliance on the ground of redundancy to disengage them is a subterfuge to deny then their full benefits as its employees; and that the defendant’s Employee Handbook stipulates that the redundancy benefits shall be paid in accordance with the prevailing Nigeria Labour laws. The claimants stated that the defendant is mandated to negotiate with them to determine the amount to be paid as their redundancy benefits in accordance with the prevailing Nigerian labour law but the defendant failed to negotiate but unilaterally came up with an amount as their redundancy benefits. The claimants stated that they felt dissatisfied with the action of the defendant and wrote several letters of appeal demanding for the reversal of the defendant’s action or pay them 1 years salary as their redundancy benefit but all their letters were ignored by the defendant.

[6] The Claimants stated that when the defendant failed to respond to their demands, they instructed the Law Firm of Teslim Agboola & Co. to write the defendant a letter of demand but the defendant refusal and failed to heed the demands. The claimants stated that before their disengagement by the defendant, they earned different amounts as their basic salaries; and that the defendant did not pay their bonus for the year 2018. The claimants averred that they are entitled to the sum of N697, 884,92 (Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Four Naira, Ninety Two Kobo) only as bonus for the year 2018. The claimants stated that the failure of the defendant to pay their outstanding redundancy benefits for many months after their wrongful disengagement amounts to unfair labour practice and denial of lawful entitlements, and such failure had caused them psychological trauma, emotional distress and financial deprivation.

[7] In reply and defence to the counterclaim, the claimants stated that their employment with the defendant as at the time of their unlawful disengagement was not for a fixed tenure but for an indefinite period; and that they were entitled to bonuses for the year 2018 which is paid to all staff after monthly or quarterly satisfactory assessment of the staff and the claimants have been collecting same since their employment. The claimants/defendants to counter-claim averred that no agreement was reached in the meetings of 16th and 17th October, 2018 on the actual amount to be paid as redundancy benefits and that the defendant/counter-claimant only imposed and paid certain amount of money without their agreement.

[8] The claimants called three witnesses- Phillip Nickson (CWI), Kelvin Kwerechi Nkwo-Opara (CW2), Daniel Dorcas (CW3). They each adopted their statements on oath and relied on the admitted documents. In cross-examination, CW1 informed the court that he is a team leader but he is not part of the management team; and that they do not have access to the financial statements of the defendant.  CW1 confirmed that the employee handbook did not state one year’s salary as redundancy payment. CW1 told the court that the defendant did not negotiate with them on redundancy as provided by the Labour Act, and admitted that he attended a meeting with the defendants on the issue of redundancy. CW1 told the court that he knows what bonus pay is; and not every staff is entitled to bonus payment as it is a reward to staff who meet their targets based on their appraisals. He told the court that the bonus pay claimed is based on staff appraisal but that the appraisals are not before the court. CW1 confirmed that they received payments after they were declared redundant and that none of them rejected the sums. He stated that the positions they occupied were not redundant and that they asked to be reinstated, or be paid one years salary.

[9] Under cross-examination, CW2 stated that he was paid 2 months salary as redundancy, while CW1 was paid 3 months salary and some others 1 month. He told the court that he has made a claim for the balance of 10 months in the sum of N481,904.70. In cross-examination, CW3 told the court that the defendant owes her N404,000.00 and that they all decided to ask for a year’s salary since there was no negotiation with the defendant who also refused to give them a listening ear. CW3 told the court that whether the staff does well or not, he/she is entitled to be paid bonus.

Case of the Defendant

[10] The case of the defendant on the pleadings is that the claimants were engaged at various times as call center agents for fixed tenure which has long expired and was not renewed as a result of decline in business operations. The defendant stated that claimants were never made to work under unconducive environment; and that the termination of their fixed employment was on valid ground of redundancy as a result of dwindling revenue occasioned by lack of business and restructuring of the business. The defendant stated that based on the terms and conditions of the claimants employment and in line with best international labour practice, they were not entitled to be paid redundancy of a sum equal to one year basic salary, or an amount to be mutually determined in case of termination on the ground of redundancy.

[11] The defendant stated that it had a prior agreement with the claimants at a meeting held on 16th and 17th October, 2018 with the Human Resources Department wherein the issue of their redundancy was raised, discussed and concluded. The defendants stated that the claimants were paid redundancy benefits of three (3) months, two (2) months and one (1) month full salary depending on their years in service; and that the claimants are not entitled to any outstanding balance as their redundancy benefit let alone the sum of N9,068,397.37 (Nine Million, Sixty eight Thousand, three Hundred and Ninety -Seven Naira Thirty -Seven Kobo claimed. The defendants stated disengaging the claimants on the ground of redundancy was not a subterfuge to deny them their full benefits as employees. The defendant stated that the claimants were paid redundancy benefits in accordance with the prevailing labour laws; and that the labour law did not stipulate what the claimants are entitled to in the event of redundancy.

[12] The defendant stated that it is not mandated to negotiate with the claimants to determine the amount to be paid as their redundancy benefits. The defendant averred that the claimants do not have any unpaid bonuses for the year 2018, and are not entitled to the sum of N697,884.92 Six Hundred and Ninety-Seven Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Four Naira Two Kobo) as bonus for the year 2018. The defendant averred that the figures in the tables forming part of paragraph 17 of the statement of facts are concocted and produced for the purposes of this suit. The defendant stated that it has paid the claimants their redundancy benefits; and that the disengagement of the claimants is lawful and in line with their contract of employment upon which they were employed in for fixed term. The defendants stated that the claimants have not suffered any psychological trauma, emotional distress and financial deprivation.

[13] On the counter claim, the defendant stated that the claimants were duly paid their redundancy benefits and they all signed and collected their benefit without any complaints, and that it is not indebted to the claimants. The defendant stated that this  suit is a gold-digging, and vexatious. The defendant averred that it engaged Ernest Annie Nwoye of Messers E- LAW & CO to defend the suit of the fee of N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) only.

[14] The defendant’s witness is Aneke Paschaline Chiamaka (DW), Assistant Director and Head of HR. She adopted her statement on oath. Under cross-examination, DW informed the court that she was part of the meeting where the claimant’s redundancy benefits were discussed. DW told the court that the defendant never agreed to pay one year salary as redundancy benefits, and that after the redundancy exercise, there was no meeting with the claimants. DW told the court that the call center was shut down due to operational costs; and that the Abuja call center was shut down in 2018. DW told the court that the defendant pays bonus to the staff every year.

Final Address

[15] The defendant’s final address is dated March 7, 2022 and filed on March 9, 2022. The claimants’ final address is dated March 29, 2022 and filed April, 4, 2022. The defendant’s reply on points of law is dated April 8, 2022 and filed on April 11, 2022. Parties adopted their respective addresses.

Learned counsel to the defendant/counter-claimant submitted two issues for determination:

1.      Whether having regard to the contract of employment between the claimants and the defendant, the defendant owes the claimants redundancy benefit totaling the sum of ₦9,068,397.37 (nine million, sixty-eight thousand, three hundred and ninet-seven-naira, thirty-seven kobo)?

 

2.      Whether having regard to the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant, the defendant owes the claimant the sum of ₦697,884.92 (six hundred and ninety-seven thousand, eight hundred and eighty-four-naira, ninety-two kobo) as bonus for the year 2018.

[16] Learned counsel submitted that the law is that the burden of proof is on he who alleges, citing sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. That the primary onus of proof in a civil case such as the present one lies on the claimants who commenced this action alleging under payment. He cited Kwamina Kuma v. Kofi Kum (1934) Waca 178 At P. 179; - Kodilinye v. Mbenefo Odu (1935) 2 WACA 336 at P. 337; Ayitey Cobblah v. Tettey Gbeke; Ekweozor & Ors v. Reg. Trustees of the Saviour's Apostolic Church of Nig; Okomu Oil Pqlm Co. Ltd v. Iserhienrhien (2001) LPELR-2471(SC). He submitted that in clause 3.1.4 of the defendant’s handbook, redundancy was provided for, and it gave the defendant the power to declare redundancy and the exist decisions at the management discretion. He submitted that the defendant has the right to terminate the employment of the claimants on grounds of redundancy. That on the evidence adduced, the declaration of redundancy does not carry along with it the payment of one year salary or any other benefit except those benefits enumerated in terms of the contract which has been paid and accepted citing Pan Ltd v. Oje (1997) 11 NWLR (PT 530) 625.

`

[17] Learned counsel on issue 2 referred to Oxford Law Dictionary for the definition of bonus: a sum of money added to a person's wages as a reward for good performance. He submitted that there is no provision for the payment of bonuses to employees in exhibit 3, the handbook, and that the claimants also failed to prove that there was an appraisal of their performance for year 2018. He submitted that the claimants who are seeking for declaratory and injunctive reliefs against the defendant must succeed on the strength of their own case, not on the admission or weakness of the defendant’s case relying on C.P.C. v. INEC (2012) 1 NWLR (pt. 1280) 106 of 131. It was his submission that the claimants have failed to prove any wrong done to them by the defendant and they are not entitled to damages. He then urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case.

 

[18] Learned counsel to the claimant raised two issues for determination:

(i) Considering the facts and circumstances of this case, whether the defendant can unilaterally determine and pay redundancy benefit to the claimants.

(ii) Considering the fact and circumstances of this case, whether the claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought as per their claims.

 On issue 1, he submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of this case, the defendant cannot unilaterally determine and pay redundancy benefits to the claimants without first negotiating with them. He referred to the provision of clause 3.1.4 of the defendant’s Handbook (Exhibit C3) and the provision of Section 20 of the Labour Act, Cap L1, LFN, 2004; and went on to submit that redundancy benefits must be paid in accordance with the prevailing Nigeria Law. That by the provision of Section 20 of the Labour Act redundancy benefits must be negotiated and paid; and that the law is settled that where a procedure is stipulated for carrying out an act, carrying out the act in a different manner will amount to violation of the procedure. Counsel cited Emeneke Vs. PDP & Ors 2011 LPELR 19752 (CA).

[19] On issue 2, learned counsel submitted that as endorsed on the statement of facts, the claimants are entitled to all the reliefs sought in this case. He submitted that the claimants have adduced evidence in support of their claims; and that the burden of proof is on the defendant to prove redundancy by exhibiting her financial reports of the previous years and the year where she claimed redundancy citing Union Bank of Nig. Ltd v. Prof. A. O. Ozigi (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 333) p. 385. On the 25% post judgment interest, he submitted that by the Rules particularly, Order 47 Rule 7, the court has the power to grant a post judgment interest of not less than 10%.

[20] The defendant’s reply on point of law is simply a re-argument of the final address. It is hereby discountenanced.

Decision

[21] I have carefully considered the originating processes, the evidence, the submissions of counsel and authorities relied on in the final address. The law is settled that in the determination of employment rights, it is the employee who complains that his employment contract has been breached that has the burden to place before the court the terms and conditions of his employment that provides for his rights and obligations. See Okoebor v Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444, Okomu Oil Palm Co v Iserhienrhien [2001] 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 at 673, Idoniboye-Obe v. NNPC [2003] 2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589 at 630. The claimants have placed before the court their contracts of employment (exhibits C1, C9, C11, and C2), the defendant’s employee handbook (exhibit C3), and the notification of redundancy.

 

[22] The issues that arise for determination are as follows:

 

(i) Whether on the pleadings and evidence the claimants ought to be entitled to the reliefs they are seeking.

 

(ii) Whether the defendant/counter claimant has proved the counter claim.

 

[23] The claimant’s employment letters reveal that some had employment contracts of indefinite period, while some others had contracts for fixed periods. However, at the time the claimants were disengaged, those who had fixed terms were in the service of the defendants. In other words their fixed terms had not expired or come to an end. The evidence before the court is that the claimants were all disengaged on grounds of redundancy. The contents of the letters of disengagement issued to each of the claimants are the same, and one of them is reproduced as follows:

 

15th October, 2018.

Phillip Nickson

Call Centre Team Leader

Abuja Zone.

 

NOTIFICATION OF REDUNDANCY

In view of the ongoing company restructuring and its workforce optimization process across the organization, a decision has been taken to reduce the staff strength.

 

The company has explored ways in which your redundancy could be avoided and the possibility of alternative position in another department. Unfortunately, we do not have any available position you can fit in.

Consequently, we regret to inform you that your position is affected. Therefore, NTA-Star TV Network Ltd in exercise of its right under your offer of employment, herein conveys that your services will no longer be required effective 31st October, 2018. Please do note that this notice is in compliance with your terms of contract and you shall be paid a terminal benefit in line with management’s approval.

 

Kindly handover all company’s properties in your possession and complete the exit processes with Human Resources Department.

 

The entire management appreciates you for your contribution to the company and wishes you the best in your future endeavor.

 

Yours Faithfully,

For : NTA Star TV Network

Aneke Paschaline

Acting Human Resources Director

 

[24] From the contents of this letter, the defendant declared a redundancy. The claimants have complained that the declaration of a redundancy was a mere subterfuge to relieve them of their jobs as the defendant was a going concern. It is the law that whoever desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove those facts exist, section 131 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, see Calabar Co-operative Ltd v Ekpo [2008] 1-2 SC 229 at 255. The claimants did not adduce any evidence to support their assertion that the declaration of redundancy was feigned to deny them of their full disengagement benefits, and an unfair labour practice. They did not prove that their redundancy could have been avoided, or that there were other roles or positions available for them. They also did not adduce evidence to show that no restructuring occurred, and that the Abuja call centre was not shut down. The claimants could not prove unfair labour practice. Consequently, the main head of claim relief 1, and relief 7 must fail. They are hereby refused.

 

[25] The claimant’s have admitted in their pleadings that the defendant paid them various amounts of money as their redundancy benefits; ranging from three (3) months basic salaries, two (2) months basic salaries and one (1) month basic salary depending on their years in service. The law is settled that a party is bound by its  pleadings, see Woluchem v Guchi (1981) 5 SC 291 at 320; and admitted facts need not be proved Unity Bank v Denclaf Ltd [2012] 18 NWLR (Pt 1332) 293 SC. The claimants therefore admit that the defendant has paid them an amount as redundancy benefits. They however assert that the defendant is mandated to negotiate with them to determine the amount to be paid as redundancy benefits but the defendant failed to negotiate and unilaterally fixed sums as redundancy benefits. That based on the terms and conditions of their employment, and in line with best international labour practice, they are entitled to be paid redundancy benefits of a sum equal to one year basic salary.

 

[26] Section 20 of the Labour Act provides as follows:

 

Redundancy

 

(1) In the event of redundancy-

 

(a)    the employer shall inform the trade union or workers representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy;

(b)   the principle of “last in, first out” shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability, and;

(c)    the employer shall use his best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made under subsection (2) of this section.

 

[27] From the evidence adduced, the claimants are not members of a trade union, neither have they adduced evidence that they have a workers representative whom the defendant is mandated to engage with by the provisions of section 20(1)(a). That notwithstanding, I find that the defendant informed the claimants at the meeting of 16th and 17th October 2018 of the reasons for the redundancy and both parties discussed the issues involved in the redundancy which includes benefits to be paid. CW1 admitted that he attended a meeting with the defendants in respect of the redundancy declared. The fact of this meeting is corroborated by DW who said she was present at the meeting with the claimants where their redundancy were discussed.

 Now, the Labour Law and particularly section 20 of the Labour Act has no provision for what is to be paid as redundancy benefits by an employer. This is the reason section 20(1)(c) provides that employers are to negotiate with the trade unions, or workers representatives.

 

[28] The evidence of CW1 is that the claimants asked for one year’s salary or reinstatement. In cross-examination CW1 confirmed that there is no provision in the defendant’s employee handbook to pay one year’s salary as redundancy benefit. DW in cross-examination asserted that the defendant never agreed to pay one years salary as redundancy benefits. The law is settled that the conditions of service, rules and regulations in a contract of employment bind both the employer and employee equally, see D.A.  Alep (Nig) Ltd v Oluwadare [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt 1033) 336. I find that the defendant at the meeting with the claimants on the redundancy refused to accede to their demands of one year’s salary as redundancy benefits. This represents negotiation that was unsuccessful, the parties having failed to reach an agreement.

 

[29] The claimants have asserted that it is international best practice for an employer to pay one year’s salary as redundancy benefits. Section 7(6) of the National Industrial Act 2006 stipulates as follows:

 

The Court shall, in exercising its jurisdiction or any of the powers conferred upon it by this Act or any other enactment or law, have due regard to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations and what amounts to good or international best practice in labour or industrial relations shall be a question of fact.

The above provisions enjoin this court in the exercise of its jurisdiction to have due regard to good or international best practices, and this shall be a question of fact to be proved at the trial, see Sahara Energy Resources Ltd v Oyebola (unreported) CA/L/1091/2016 (Judgement 3 December 2020). The claimants did not lead any evidence to prove the fact of their assertion that payment of one year’s salary by an employer as redundancy benefit is international best practice in labour. In the circumstances, relief 2, 4, and 6 fail, and they are hereby refused.

[30] The claimants have asked for a declaration that they are entitled to bonus pay for the year 2018. The claimants have not placed before the court the document that entitles them to bonus pay; neither have they shown the basis of computation of the bonus they have claimed. The evidence of CW1 is that not every staff is entitled to bonus pay as it is a reward to staff who meet their targets based on their appraisals. CW1 admitted that the bonus pay claimed is based on staff appraisal, and that their appraisals are not before the court. CW3 also admitted that bonus pay is based on appraisals. In the circumstances, the claim for bonus pay has not been proved. Reliefs 3 and 5 are refused in the absence of proof.

[31] The principal reliefs having failed, the claim for interest and costs also fails. The   case is hereby dismissed for all the reasons stated above. Costs in the sum of N100,000.00 awarded the defendant.

[32] The defendant is praying for the sum of N3 Million as reasonable attorney’s fee, and the sum of N1Million Naira in its counter claim. The bill of charges is not in evidence. The decisions of the appellate courts is that it is unethical and an affront to public policy for a litigant to pass the burden of his legal fees to his opponent, see Guinness Nigeria Plc v Nwoke [2000] 15 NWLR (Pt 689) 135. Furthermore, a claim for Solicitors fees which does not form a part of the cause of action is not one that can be granted, see DHL International Ltd v Eze Uzoamaka (2020) 16 NWLR (Pt 1751) 4459, Ibe v Bonum Nig Ltd (2019) LPELR 46452, Michael v Access Bank (2017) LPELR 42981. The counter claim is baseless, frivolous and lacks merit. It is hereby dismissed. Costs in the sum of N100,000 in favour of the claimants.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

                                                _____________________________

                                                Hon Justice O.A.Obaseki-Osaghae