IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE CALABAR JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT CALABAR

BEFORE: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANUSI KADO

9^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023                                                                  SUIT NO. NICN/CA/06/2020

BETWEEN

Nsikak Ossom Ittu ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………... claimant

AND

Ruixing Company Ltd ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………… defendant     

JUDGMENT.

1.      Vide a general form of complaint dated 3/2/2020 and filed on the same date, the claimant stated that he was employed by the defendant as a truck driver without issuance of letter of employment.

2.      On or about January, 2019, the defendant transferred the plaintiff from Calabar to Abeokuta, Ogun State for the same duty of conveying stones from quarry sites to construction sites. According to the plaintiff on arrival at Abeokuta no provision or arrangement for accommodation was made for him and others transferred together with him.

3.      On or about 27/1/2019, shortly after the routine operation meeting with his colleague, the plaintiff been pressed with call of nature, as usual, stepped into the nearby bush to relieve himself and he was attacked by a python (snake) which wound itself around the plaintiff up to his waist. The plaintiff battled for his life as his call for help was not heard by his colleagues. By stroke of grace of God, the snake threw him to a distance from which he hid from the snake and thereafter the plaintiff crawled to the main road and immediately lost consciousness. On the advice of the natives the plaintiff was taken to traditional healers where he regained consciousness.

4.      According to the plaintiff Mr. Suong the manager of the defendant was promptly informed of the incident that evening but he turned deaf ears, did nothing and care less to the critical health conditions and never did anything thereabout nor did any other person for and on behalf of the defendant, thus, the plaintiff was left to his fate in his quest for survival, treatment and recovery.

5.      The family of the claimant took him to hospital but due to lack of concern by the defendant the plaintiff could not do any of the testes recommended for him. The plaintiff also visited Lagos State University Teaching Hospital where he was examined and issued with a report. The claimant had not been paid his basic salary in the sum of N100,000.00 since January 2019. Though the plaintiff had recovered, but, he cannot sit for a longtime on account of internal injuries in his bones and joints. This means the plaintiff cannot maintain his professional driving.

6.      The claimant brought this action praying for:-

1.      N100,000.00 per month from January 2019, being wages due to the plaintiff.

2.      N50,000,000.00 being compensation for injuries by the plaintiff in the course of duties for the defendant.

7.      For the defendant the claimant was not employed as a full time employee of the defendant but on a part time basis that is why no letter of employment was issued to the plaintiff. There were no conditions of service regulating his employment with the defendant. The defendant denied carrying out quarry business, sales and supply of stones as alleged but engaged in transportation business. Drivers engaged on part time basis transport quarry materials from quarry site of the contracting company to be delivered to construction sites, places or persons who have paid for them. The claimant was never transferred from Calabar to Abeokuta, but asked to transport quarry materials from Calabar to Abeokuta. The defendant is not responsible for arranging accommodation for its part time workers, because the part time workers are highly paid and this payment includes accommodation allowances as well as other incentives. The plaintiff is not paid a fixed monthly salary, but is paid based on the kilometers they run on mileage covered, as a result a driver could earn as much as Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) N280,00000 to Three Hundred thousand Naira N300,000.00 per month based on kilometer or mileage covered by the driver.

8.      The defendant provide well flourished containers at all terminus which are well furnished. The same containers are also used by their expatriate staff.  The plaintiff was well aware of all the conditions before accepting to be engaged by the defendant though on part time basis. The claimant reserved the right to walk away at any time, if he found that the working conditions were unfavourable. The defendant also stated that the decision to sleep by road side or in the truck, bathing in the open and using the bush for toilet is purely the decision of the plaintiff and is part of the occupational hazard of the job.

9.      According to the defendant luck run out on the plaintiff as he was nearly attacked by a python. The claimant escaped physically unhurt but thoroughly shaken. It is also stated that even though the plaintiff behaved in a primitive, barbaric, unhygienic and in a socially unacceptable manner, by defecating in the bush, the defendant showed a lot of concern.  In fact, Mr. Suong gave the plaintiff the sum of Fifteen Thousand Naira N15,000.00 to enable him travel to Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State to enable him recover from the trauma as requested by him. Mr. Suong could not have called the bluff of any doctor as he was never called by any doctor. The defendant did not owe the plaintiff any duty whatsoever and that the plaintiff predicament was purely his own doing.

10. It was stated that the plaintiff who has worked with the defendant for a period of not less than six 6 months before this incident and who earns about Two Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira to Three Hundred Thousand Naira a month depending on mileage cannot be heard to say that he could not afford to carry out such simple tests. And the claimant not being a permanent staff of the defendant could not have been placed on a monthly salary of N100,000.00 per month as alleged. The plaintiff’s salary as a driver is based on mileage/km covered per month. The plaintiff earns N280,000.00 to N300,000.00 based on mileage/km. The claimant since he went his home town in Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State, he has not reported back to the company thereby cutting off any link with the defendant.

11. In reply to the statement of defence the claimant stated that the defendant as a matter of practice does not issue letters of employment to non-chinese employees. The claimant was issued with regulation for drivers. The defendant did not pay nor used to pay accommodation allowance or any such thing nor provided any container lodging as alleged. There was no toilet facilities provided for the claimant and his colleague. The claimant had no choice but exposed by the defendant. The claimant denied ever being paid wages claimed to be paid by the defendant. The claimant denied being provided with any facility and if any the Nigerian employees of the defendant don’t access same as it is exclusively for the Chinese.

THE SUBMISSON OF THE DEFENDANT:

12. The defendant formulated twin issues for determination. They are:-

1.      Whether with regard to the claimant’s pleadings and evidence adduced the claimant has made out a case of negligence against the defendant to be entitled to compensation.

2.      Whether the claimant has made out a case to be entitled to the payment of N100,000.00 per month as wages from January 2019 till date.

13. Issue one:- Whether with regard to the claimant’s pleadings and evidence adduced the claimant has made out a case of negligence against the defendant to be entitled to compensation.

14. Eta L. Akpama, Esq; counsel for the defendant in arguing issue one submitted that from the pleadings and evidence adduced  with particular regard to statement of claim, claimant is alleging that it was as a result of the negligence of the defendant, that the claimant suffered injury, the claimant is entitled to compensation. On definition of negligence counsel refers to the case of MBP V A (W.A) Nig. Ltd (2015) All FWLR (Pt.781) 1443 @ 1467, where negligence was defined, thus:

‘Negligence is generally defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonable person would have exercised in a similar situation, any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly or willfully in disregard of others rights (Blacks Law Dictionary, 8^th Edition, pages 1062-1063 referred to).

15. It is submission of counsel that on legal duty and burden imposed on a claimant in an action for negligence, the claimant is required to state or give particulars of negligence alleged and to recover on the negligence pleaded in those particulars. It is not sufficient to make a blanket allegation of negligence without giving particulars of the items of negligence relied on as well as the duty of care owed to him by the defendant. On this submission reliance was placed on the case of MBP V D (WA) Nig. Ltd (supra).

16. It is also submitted that the claimant made blanket allegation of negligence without giving full particulars of the items of negligence relied on as well as the duty of care the defendant herein owes him. This neglect or failure, it is submitted is fatal to claimant’s action for negligence. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the case of Koya V UBA (1997) 1 NWLR (Pt.481) 251.

17. Counsel also refers to the case of British Airways V Atoyebi (2015) All FWLR (Pt766) 442, where the court stated the elements of negligence, thus:-

                               I.            The essential elements to establish an action on negligence are:-

                            II.            The existence of a duty to take care owed to the complainant by the appellant.

                         III.            Failure to attain that standard of care prescribed by the law and;

                          IV.            Damages suffered by the complainant which must be connected with the breach of the duty to take care.

18. It is submitted that even if claimant had laid down proper foundation in his pleading as regards the essential elements and prerequisite for an action in negligence, his action will still fail because of the quality of evidence led by him at the trial. Counsel submitted that the burden of establishing a case lies on the claimant. It is when that is done burden shift on the defendant.  In support of this proposition counsel relied on the case of NWT/NG Ltd V PSTF (2008) All FWLR (Pt439) 499. It is also submitted that the claimant did not discharge the burden of proof placed on him.

19. Counsel refers to paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the witness deposition filed on 3/2/2020, and submitted they tend to show defendant was negligent as the defendant did not provide toilet facilities. The defendant met those pieces of evidence, in DW1 deposition in paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, and a month.  Though the claimant reacted in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of deposition filed along with reply.

20. Counsel posited that the above piece of evidence, that while the claimant is maintaining that he was entitled to accommodation to be provided by the defendant, the defendant is on the other hand maintaining as can be seen from paragraph 6 of DW1 statement on oath that claimant herein was paid between N280,000 to N300,000.00.  The reaction of the claimant in paragraph 3 of the reply and paragraph 7 of its witness statement on oath.

21. It is submitted by counsel that the pay slip which would have resolve the dispute was never tendered counsel urged the court to use section 167(d) of the Evidence Act to hold that the pay slip if tendered will be unfavourable to claimant. Counsel further relied on Ekweozor V Registered Trustees, S.A.C.N. (2020) 11 NWLR (Pt.1734) 51 @ 102., National Salt Company of Nigeria Ltd V Mrs. M.J. Innins-Palmer (1992) 1 NWLR (Pt.218) 422 @ 435. It is further submitted that the claimant having pleaded pay slip and refusal to tender it means he had something to hide. Likewise the drivers regulations pleaded since it is not produced it is not favourable to claimant. Counsel submitted that mere allegation in the pleading without adducing evidence is no proof. Azike V Nigeria Bottling Company Plc (2019) All FWLR (Pt.989) 1229.

22. Counsel also submitted that paragraphs 10 and 11 are hearsay, as the facts deposed are not within personal knowledge of the claimant, as it is either Mr. Suong or Doctor that can give that evidence. Counsel submitted paragraphs 10 and 11 having violated the provisions of sections 115, 125 and 126 of the Evidence Act, should be expunged. Also relied is the case of Azike V Ngeria Bottling Company Plc (supra).

23. Counsel continued his submission that exhibit C is hearsay as the maker was not called as a witness to testify, will not be accorded probative value. On this submission reliance was placed on the cases of Uzodinma V Ihedioha (2020) 5 NWLR (Pt1718) 529, Lambert V Nigeria navy (2006) 7 NWLR (Pt.980) 514 @ 547. According to counsel exhibit C can only establish that it was made but not its content. To support this contention reliance was placed on the case of Metah V FRN (2020) 7 NELR (Pt.1723) 325 @ 259.

24. It is also the submission of counsel that even if exhibit C is to be looked at, it is inconsistent with the claimant’s case at the trial. Where claimant maintained he was not treated at hospital because defendant refused to provide money for such treatment and that claimant could not afford it and had to depend on unorthodox treatment. By exhibit C the claimant was treated at the hospital. By exhibit C claimant was suffering from snake bit which is contrary to his case exhibit C lacks any probative value, same with other exhibits which do not add any value to the claimant’s case.

25. Counsel posited that litigation is about finding out truth according to law. A party worthy of favourable consideration of the court is one who is consistent in both the facts he pleads and evidence he leads in proof of those facts. The claimant who from his pleadings in paragraphs 5 and 6 stated that he was wound up to waist by snake and by divine providence he was thrown at some distance where he crawled to safety. But under cross-examination and in exhibit C, maintained a different posture when he stated that he was bitten by the snake (Python), if he was bitten by the snake, of course he would not have survived. The claimant by his pleadings never pleaded he was bitten by python. The fact of been bitten only came up during cross examination and by exhibit C.

26. Counsel continued his submission that by paragraph 15 of his deposition on oath of 3/2/2020, he was paid N100,000.00 per month by the defendant but during cross examination flip  flopped when he stated that he was pad N20,000.00  by the defendant, then which of the two conflicting testimonies is the court going to believe on such a vital and fundamental aspects of his case upon which his reliefs are anchored.  The trial evidence is inconsistent with case he pleaded. Such a witness cannot be accorded credibility. Azike V Nigerian Bottling Company Plc (supra), Deleke V Oyetola (2020) 6 NWLR (Pt.1721) 440 @ 503.

27. Counsel also submitted that the claimant has failed woefully to discharge the burden of proof to entitled him to succeed. He has failed not only to show that the defendant was negligent or that the defendant owed him a duty of care.

28. Counsel also submitted that assuming but not conceding that the defendant owed him duty of care and that the defendant did not provide a toilet for the claimant’s use, it is submitted provision of toilet is a moral obligation as opposed to a legal duty and that what is morally reprehensible may not be legally punishable. On this submission reliance was placed on the case of Kabo Air Ltd V Mohammed (2015) 5 NWLR (Pt.1451) 38.

29. It is the submission of counsel that it will be okay to sympathize with the claimant for his self-enforced ordeal, but it remains that our courts are not places for sentiments but a place for espousing the law. Kabo Air Ltd V Mohammed (supra).

30. Counsel call on court to admonish the claimant on open defecation as a condemnable act, that is not only barbaric, but brutish and primitive and out of place in modern and egalitarian society such as ours. It offends normal sensibility for the claimant to seek to benefit from such a reprehensible act. The claimant has come to the court of equity with soiled hands. It is well established principle of law that a party should not be allowed to benefit from his own wrong. Similarly, the court should not allow itself to be used as an instrument of fraud. This is embodied in the latin maxim ‘Aullus commodum protested injuria sua propria’ no one can gain advantage by his own wrong. Enekwe V IMB (Nig.) ltd (2009) 19 NWLR (Pt.1013) 146 @ 156, Adedeji V National Bank of Nigeria (1989) NWLR (Pt.86) 212.

31. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the defendant.

32. Issue two; Whether the claimant has made out a case to be entitled to the payment of N100,000.00 per month as wages from January 2019 till date. In arguing this issue counsel submitted that this issue is in respect of relief 1 and it is predicated on the assumption that claimant is under the employment of the defendant and that the employment still subsists and that he is entitled to recover his wages of the sum of N100,0000.00 per month.

33. It is the submission of counsel that in contract of employment and wrongful termination the starting point is the letter of employment. Ironically the claimant has not pleaded his letter of employment, the agreed terms and conditions of the employment/appointment which his claim is nothing whatsoever. In fact the claimant has placed nothing whatsoever before this court upon which his claim is based. How he arrived at the sum of N100,000.00  per month remain a mystery only the claimant can unravel. There are no pleadings or evidence adduced in support of this head of claim. In support of this submission reliance was placed on the cases of Abayomi V Soap Tech Nig. Ltd (2020) 1 NWLR (Pt.1706) 253, Afribank V Osisayan (2005) 1 NWLR (Pt.642) 591, Emenite Ltd V Oleka (2015) 6 NWLR (921) 350, Olarenwaju V Afribank (2011) NWLR (Pt.731).

34. Counsel submitted that in the absence of a contract of employment the agreed terms and conditions of employment/appointment upon which the claims are made out, the court has no option than to dismiss the claim as to do otherwise will amount to speculations. In support of this proposition reliance was placed Azike V NBC Plc (supra).

35. It is submitted that the claimant’s evidence at the trial that he was not issued with letter of employment. The defendant has maintained that the claimant was employed on a part time basis and paid per km driven and that the claimant is paid N280,000 to N300,000.00  per month, a fact which the claimant vehemently denied and insisted that he was paid N100,000.00 per month. To buttress this point the claimant pleaded his last pay slip which would have resolved this issue one way or the other. The claimant equally pleaded drivers regulations issued to him by the defendant. But the claimant has failed to produce the said documents.

36. Counsel submitted in the absence of pay slip, there is nothing before the court to prove this claim. It is further submitted that the claimant’s case is fraught with material contradiction, the effect of which claimant case is to be dismissed. Anyanwu V PDP (2020) 3 NWLR (Pt.1710) 134, Ikpeazu V Otti (2016) 4 NWLR (Pt.1513) 38 Dama V INEC (2012) 12 NWLR (Pt.131`7), Onemu v  Commissioner for Agriculture (2019) All FWLR (Pt.1009) 1.

37. Counsel is of the view that due to so many contradictions in the claimant’s case, there is no scintilla of credible evidence in proof of his case. On exhibit B, the defendant denied receipt of that letter, the claimant stated it was delivered by courier but there was no evidence of courier delivery tendered. Counsel urged the court not accord exhibit B any evidential value.

38. It is also submitted that claimant stated he was transferred to Abeokuta on 24/1/2019 and the incident leading to institution of this case occurred on 27/1/2019, four days on arrival at Abeokuta. However by the deposition in paragraph 3 of the additional witness statement on oath, the claimant stated that the incident occurred weeks after they had been at Abeokuta.

39. Again in paragraph 12 of DW1 statement on oath claimant was given N15,000.00 to enable him travel to Uyo at his insistence, this assertion was denied by the claimant as per paragraph 5 of the reply. But under cross examination the claimant admitted being given the money.

40. Counsel submitted the claimant admitted during cross examination admitted that he was never dismissed by the defendant. That he stayed away from workout of his own free volition since defendant did not show concern for his wellbeing. 

41. It is submitted the claimant has not made out a case for payment of wages in an employment in which he unilaterally terminated coupled with the fact that the claimant has failed to place any material before this Honourable court to justify this head of claim even if it was so entitled.

THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT:

42. C. O. Eze-Ibe, Esq; counsel for the claimant adopted the final written address of the claimant, wherein a single issue was formulaed for determination, to wit:-

a.      Whether the Claimant was in the Cause of his employment with the Defendant during the incidence and therefore entitled to the reliefs sought in this matter.

b.      In arguing this issue counsel submitted that some issues stand out from the evidence of both parties; namely:-

                               I.            The Claimant was an employee of the Defendant.

                            II.            As such employee, he was on duty at Abeokuta.

                         III.            The Claimant was attacked by a python in the cause of using the bush to ease himself.

43. Counsel stressed that by nature, every healthy person must have need to ease himself. If that doesn’t happen, there’s problem. The pressure to ease one’s self can occur whether one is in the house or on the road. And with due respect to nature, the pressure can hardly be ignored, at least for long.  Unless what unfortunately befell the Claimant, the cause of this action is viewed from the narrative of call of nature, Justice might be displaced by fanciful rhetoric or argument qua argument.

44. According to counsel it is worth noting that the Claimant did not conjour nor invited the python to attack him. Nobody wishes himself evil, at least of such gravity and near death experience. Naturally also wild beasts including Pythons, live in the bush and prone to attack humans at sight.

45. Counsel argued that the reality on ground was that the Claimant was attacked by the Python in the cause of easing himself in the bush on call of nature and in the cause of his employment with the Defendant. The main crux if this matter is what did the Defendant do or ought to have done as a responsible corporate organization who appreciates its workforce and has the interest and welfare of the workforce at heart?

46. It is the submission of counsel that there is evidence abundant on both sides of the matter that the management of the Defendant was immediately contacted and informed of the imminent battle for life the Claimant was in. Evidence also abounds that there was desperate need for medical attention by the Claimant. There is no doubt on either side of the matter that Claimant could not be attended to medically because there was no responsible action of ownership of care on the part of the Defendant.

47. Counsel argued that it is an objective point whether throughout that dire emergency and up until now, what the Defendant did to show any sense of empathy or sympathy with the situation of the Claimant. One does not need any assistance of Clairvoyance to see that the Defendant was irresponsible and irresponsive to the plight of its staff.

48. Counsel asked the question, did not the Defendant owe the Claimant any duty of care and welfare in the circumstances  the Claimant found himself?  To answer the question counsel refers to the case of  CHEMICAL & NON METALLIC PRODUCTS SSA Vs. BCC  (2005) 2 NLLR (Pt. 6) 446 @482, where the National Industrial Court held that the Safety of Workers is of Paramount Importance, not just to the Company but to the Country at large.

49. According to counsel the Defendant did not think or show that the safety of the Claimant in the Ordeal he passed through while on duty was important to it nor to the Claimant. The Defendant simply played deaf to the plight of the Claimant. In the case of  JULIUS BERGER NIG PLC Vs. GODFRY NWAGWU (2006) 6 NLLR (Pt.15) 169 @ 190 the Court of Appeal held amongst others that conglomerates, or indeed any employer of labour ought to provide the basic essentials for the performance by the employee of his duties. It further stated that allowing workers to face hazards of the trade unprotected is callous.

50. It is contended that the undue emphases made of whether the Claimant is temporary or permanent employee is to say the least most callous in the circumstances the Claimant unfortunately found himself. Reasonable or Responsible Organization or Employer would have afforded the Claimant the minimum of medical attention and treatment. Assuming but not conceding that the Claimant was blameworthy to any extent for his life/health sake, the Defendant would have ralied around him to save his life. Evidence abound presently, that the Defendant didn’t care whatever fate befell the Claimant.

51. Counsel continued his submission that it has been halfheartedly argued in the Written Address of the Defendant that the Claimant, while pleading negligence, did not state particulars of negligence. Even a casual perusal of the Statement of Claim would show that the word “Neglect” appeared once only in paragraph 16, and in conjunction with abandonment and in relation to failure or refusal of the Defendant to take responsibility for the plight of the Claimant.

52. Thus for counsel for the claimant all the laborious submission of learned Counsel for the Defendant on practice and/or procedure of pleading in relation to Negligence was unnecessary. However, where Negligence is properly or duly pleaded without the particulars the Counts are enjoined to sift through the pleadings to see if pleadings show such particulars of Negligence. To support this submission counsel relied on the case of A.G. LEVENTIS (NIG.) PLC Vs. AKPU (2007) 17 NWLR (Pt.1063)  416 @ 450, where the Supreme Court said thus:

“On the first question, the contention of the trial Court was that although no particulars of negligence was specifically pleaded by the Plaintiff, such omission could be and was in fact cured because the Plaintiff has clearly indicated in his pleadings what his case was all about. I entirely agree with that view. I therefore believe and hold that although a Plaintiff may not specifically set out the particulars of negligence in his pleadings, that omission could be cured if the relevant details are contained in the various paragraphs of his pleadings. As that condition was met in the instant case, the appeal on that point must fail”.

53. Counsel submitted that the Plaintiff has placed before this Court evidence in proof of his case. In particular, evidence shows the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant. Evidence was similarly abundant that Claimant was at Abeokuta in the cause of his employment. That the Claimant was attacked by the Python is not disputed by the Defendant. In the circumstances of the above consensus of facts, did the Defendant attempt to justify its act of irresponsibility and irresponsiveness to the fate of the Claimant?  Obvious answer is in the negative. The Defendant was under obligation to oblige the Claimant the minimum of medical treatment or attention. This obviously it failed to do.

54. It is submitted from the evidence of the Defendant, the N15,000.00 it paid into the account of the Claimant weeks after the unfortunate incident was for him to pay his way back to Akwa Ibom. It is an objective matter whether that said payment meant anything in substance. Rather, the Defendant abandoned the Claimant in his most dire period of need. It did not even attract the sympathy of the Defendant to at least pay the Claimant his Salaries at least to assist him pick his Medical Bills personally. Until now the Defendant has not thought it fit or necessary so to do. Is it arguable that the Claimant was entitled to his wages? The Defendant is obligated to pay the Claimant his salaries for as long as is reasonable since the state of indisposition arose in the cause of his employment.

55. Counsel submitted that the Claimant claimed N100,000.00 per month. The Defendant admitted that the Claimant was earning between N280,000.00 and N300,000.00 per month. It is trite that what is admitted needs no further proof, especially as it is admission against interest. See the case of OGUANUHU Vs. CHIEGBOKA (2013)6 NWLR (Pt. 1351) 588 @ 606 Where the Supreme Court held that facts admitted need no further proof. See also BORISHADE Vs. N.B.N. LTD. (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt.1015) 212 @ 240&246. Here in this case, the amount of wages of the Claimant is in issue. Similarly, the admission of the Defendant in the pleadings and evidence on Oath that the Claimant earned between N280,000.00 and N300,000.00 per month is clear, unambiguous and unequivocal.

56. It is also submitted that the Claimant has also claimed general damages in this matter. The general rule is that where there is injury there must be remedy. In the course of his employment with the Defendant, the Claimant was attacked. The Defendant admitted the attack. The Claimant has also stated the gravity of the injuries he suffered on account of the attack. In support of this argument counsel relied on the case of UKACHUKWU Vs. UZODINMA (2007) 9 NWLR (Pt.1038)167 @ 192 (Par. H), where the Court stated the object of awarding  damages is to compensate the Plaintiff for any loss or injury he has suffered or sustained, BORISHADE Vs. N.B.N. LTD. (2007) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1015) 217 @ 246 & 247. Counsel submitted that aAward of general damages is always at the discretion of the trial court, as held in the case of  ABIARA Vs. REG. T.M.C.N. (2007) 11 NWLR (Pt. 1045) 280 @ 290.  In considering the amount of damages, the Court usually will take into account the conduct of the party, in support of this submission reliance was placed on the case of C.D.C NIG LTD Vs. SCOA NIG. LTD. (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) @ 363 Par .G.

57. According to counsel the Conduct of the Defendant in this matter was most unfortunate, condemnable, callous and mischievous. Looking at things from the perspectives of entitlement as the Defendant appeared to have done was unfortunate. In a life or death situation as the Claimant found himself, what a reasonable organization or man would have done in the circumstances was to secure life and welfare first and foremost.

58. Counsel submitted, it would sound uncharitable to interpret the conduct of the Defendant as borne out of racial prejudice. But how else could it be understood? Assuming it happened to a Chinese, would the Defendant have turned deaf ears as it did in this matter? Obviously not imaginable. HUMAN LIVES are the same whether Nigerian or Chinese.

59. In concluding his submission counsel submitted that the issues for consideration in this matter are very narrow as succinctly captured in the Claimant’s lone issue for consideration.  Once the Claimant is adjudged to be in the cause of his employment with the Defendant at the occurrence of the event subject matter of this case, it could hardly be otherwise than that the Defendant was irresponsible and irresponsive.

60. Counsel urged the court to uphold the Claims/reliefs of the Claimant.

                                                                                                                                      i.      COURT’S DECISION:

61. I have considered the processes filed in this suit, the evidence led by the parties, the final written addresses and the oral submissions of counsel in adumbration.

62. The counsel for the defendant in the final written address of the defendant filed on 29/12/2021, started by drawing attention to the claimant’s commencing this suit by way of writ and statement of claim instead of a general form of complaint and statement of facts as provided by rules of this court under Order 3. The counsel of the claimant in the originating process commencing this suit, the reply to statement of defence and the final written address filed 30/5/2022, used plaintiff and claimant, interchangeably to refer to one and same thing. Since there is no objection raised by the defendant to this defect I say no more on this issue.

63. I now turn to the dispute as presented by the parties for resolution; The details of facts warranting institution of this suit have been stated in the earlier part of this judgment. For proper appreciation it is apt at this juncture to state a resume of the facts the parties are relying in making case before the court.

64. The claimant, a truck driver was employed as such by the defendant. On 24/1/2019, the claimant together with his colleagues was transferred to Abeokuta, Ogun State. On arrival at Abeokuta there was no arrangement made for claimant’s accommodation. This made the claimant to be sleeping by the road side or inside the truck, bathing in open and using bush for toilet. On 27/1/2019, shortly after the routine operation meeting with his colleagues the claimant was pressed with call of nature, as usual, he stepped into the nearby bush to relieve himself and thereafter was attacked by a python (snake) which wound itself around the claimant up to his waist. By stroke of grace of God the snake threw the claimant to a distance, and thereafter he crawled to the main road and immediately lost consciousness. On the advice of the natives claimant was taken by his driver colleagues to a traditional healer, where he regained his consciousness.

65. According to the claimant one Mr. Suong the project manager of the defendant and in charge of Abeokuta was informed promptly of the incident but he turned deaf ears and did nothing and cared less to the critical health conditions. The claimant the claimant was left to his faith in quest for survival of life, treatment and recovery.

66. To the claimant the defendant’s failure to take responsibility for the condition of the claimant, the claimant was turned out of the hospital, refused treatment and could not do any of the several tests recommended. Consequently, claimant resorted to traditional treatment. The claimant also went to Lagos University Teaching Hospital and was issued with a report. The report was tendered in evidence and admitted as exhibit C.

67. The defendant on its part admitted employing the claimant on part time basis and not as its permanent staff. The defendant has also stated that it is not the duty of the defendant to provide accommodation for its drivers along every route they ply. Because they are highly paid and the payment include accommodation allowances as well as other incentives. The claimant is not paid fixed monthly salary but is paid based on the kilometers they run or mileage covered. A driver earns between N280,000 to N300,000 per mileage covered. It is the case of the defendant that the defendant has provided well flourished containers at the terminus which are well furnished. The same containers are used by their expatriate staff. The claimant is aware of all the conditions before accepting his engagement by the defendant on part time basis. The decision to sleep by the road side, or in the truck, bathing in the open and using the bush for toilet is purely the decision of the plaintiff and is part of the occupational hazards of the job.

68. It is clear from the originating process commencing this suit that the claimant’s claims before the court are two folds. The law as established in the Supreme Court decision in Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47, is that claim are circumscribed by reliefs being sought by the claimant and the duty of the claimant is to adduced sufficient evidence to establish his case. This is in accord with the evidential burden placed by law on the claimant to first and foremost proved his case. When that is done the burden shift on the defendant to establish its own assertion. See sections 132, 133, 134 of the Evidence Act. It is line with the above established principle of law that I shall consider the case of the claimant as it is presented to the court as this court has no power to deviate from it.

69. However, before considering the reliefs being sought I shall deal with the assertion of DW1 under cross examination to the effect that the evidence he gave before the court was what he was told.

70. On 8/12/2021, DW1 under cross examination by C. O. Ezeibe, Esq; counsel for the claimant, DW1 informed the court that he was employed by the defendant on 5/1/2019 and since his employment he had been at his office at Akampka, throughout January 2019. The claimant was sent to Abeokuta with materials. The claimant had been in Abeokuta from 25/1/2019 to 30/1/2019, doing the work he had been sent to do, even though Abeokuta is his state what happened in Abeokuta is what he was told, as he was not in Abeokuta to know he  (claimant) was nearly attacked by snake. The management of the defendant was told what happened to claimant in Abeokuta. DW1 has never been there (to Abeokuta) when the claimant was working in Abeokuta.

71. It is apparent from the evidence of DW1 under cross examination that he does not seem to have personal knowledge of the evidence he deposed to in his witness statement on oath, which he adopted before the court as his evidence.

72. The law is settled that a witness is only allowed to testify on what he has personal knowledge of and not what he was told. Though the defendant in this case is an artificial person that cannot personally appear to testify in court, it has to give evident through its employment. The issue of who should testify for an artificial entity like the defendant in this case has for long agitated judges. Therefore, for any employee to appear in court to testify such employee must be able to be the officer that is well versed in the evidence not to give hearsay evidence. For testimony of a witness to have evidential value must be evidence of the officer whose job description relates to the issue in litigation, otherwise the evidence of the witness who is not directly involved in the transaction may be insignificant when evaluated may be lighter than feather, so insignificant as if it was not admitted in the first place.

73. In Ogugua V Amels Transport ltd (1974) 4 ECSLR 43, the testimony of business manager was not given any weigth, as he was neither a mechanical or automobile engineer. In Tugbogbo V Adelagun (1974) 1 All NLR (pt.1) 49, in this case the evidence of confidential secretary who does not work in the relevant department was considered specious and clearly unreliable by the Supreme Court. 

74. Applying the principles enunciated in the above cited cases to the facts of this case DW1 who was not a witness to what transpired at Abeokuta regarding the claimant’s claim and who did not tell the court the source of his information, his testimony is unreliable it has no evidential vale to prove the averments in the pleading of the defendant. the evidence given by DW1 amount to hearsay since it is what he was told and has not disclosed his source of information.

75. Having found the evidence of DW1 not have any evidential value, the pleading of the defendant stands abandoned due to lack of credible evidence in proof of the averments contained therein. Notwithstanding this finding, the claimant is still required by law to prove  his case by minimal evidential burden.

76. The first relief being sought by the claimant is N100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) per month from January 2019 being wages due to the claimant.

77. The law is that in civil claim, the duty of a court of law is to render unto a party as per his proven claim. See A.I.B. V Packo Plastics (2001) 30 WRN 141; Agbi V ogbeh (2006) 39 LRN 1739. It is trite law that claims for salaries, severance benefit/entitlement or/and allowances are claims for special damages, in which the party making the claim has a burden of proving his claim strictly by cogent, compelling and credible evidence. The law is also trite that claim is circumscribed by reliefs claimed; and the duty of a plaintiff, therefore, is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47, this court has in a plethora of decisions held that an employee making a claim in an employment or labour case has the burden of proving his entitlement to the claim and the quantum of his claim in terms of how he came by the said claim. See Ineh Monday Mgbeti v. Unity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/98/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 21st February 2017, Mr Charles Ughele v. Access Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/287/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 10th February 2017 and Stephen Ayaogu & 16 ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/38/2010, the judgment of which was delivered on 27th October 2017.

78. According to the claimant he is entitled to payment of his salary in the sum of N100,000.00 per month from January 2019, as his employment with the defendant as a truck driver has not been terminated because he was attacked by python when he went to answer call of nature at a nearby bush in Abeokuta where he was transferred to by the defendant.

79. In case of temporary incapacitation occasioned by sickness the common law principle seems to imply that an employee is entitled to be paid agreed wages for period of temporary incapacitation due to illness. See Marrison V Bell (1939) 2 K.B. 187; 1 ALL ER. But, this does not represent the general position of the law. Thus, why, the question of entitlement to wages in cases of temporary incapacitation through sickness or other causes will depend on the terms of employment. As the implied terms of entitlement to wages under temporary incapacitation may be cut down by express or implied term or by statute.

80. In the case at hand, there is no written agreement governing the employment of the claimant, in the circumstances, the claimant will have to fall back on implied terms of his employment, which is that claimant who is absent from work temporarily due to sickness is entitled to benefit from implied terms entitling him to wages due to illness.

81. In his pleading the claimant stated the salary he is claiming to be the sum of N100,000.00 per month from January, 2019. However, under cross examination, the claimant when asked on his salary he stated thus: They pay us salary but not fixed. When one is in the office they pay fixed salary of N20,000.00  per month when one is assigned a truck they add something , because one is on the road.’’

82. From the relief being sought the claimant’s claim is for the sum of N100,000.00 and under cross examination he said they are paid N20,000 when they are in the office and when they are assigned truck they add something but he did not state what is the something that the defendant usually adds to the N20,000.00. This clearly goes to show that the claimant was not sure of his own salary. It also means that the salary of the claimant is not fixed at a particular rate, it also means the salary for a month may not be the same with salary for another month. There is also no any other evidence tendered before the court apart from ipe dexit to prove that claimant is being paid N100,000.00 as salary per month. The claimant has also pleaded his pay slip in his reply to reply to statement of defence but never tendered it or attached a copy of the said pay slip to his pleadings as required by the rules of Court.

83. The claim for salary is by law claim for special damages. In law special damages must not only be specifically pleaded, they must be strictly proved by credible evidence of particular losses. See Onyiorah v. Onyiorah (2019) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1695) 227; Okafor v. Obiwo (1978) LPELR – 2413; U.T.C. (Nig.) Plc v. Peters (2022) 18 NWLR  (Pt.1862) 297. Therefore, in the absence of strict proof the claimant has woefully failed to establish entitlement to relief 1, same is hereby refused.

84. The second relief is for N50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) being compensation for injuries by the claimant in the course of duties for the defendant.

85. At a first glance one may be tempted to say that the claimant’s relief seeking for compensation is a claim in tort. The claimant’s pleading is very clear and unambiguous there was nowhere negligence was pleaded in the statement of claim or the reply to the statement of defence. The claimant did not plead negligence before the court. Therefore, the claimant’s claim is on compensation for injury sustained in the course of duties to the defendant.

86. The claimant’s claim for compensation was anchored on the claimant’s contention that he was attacked by a Python as a result of which he became unconscious and was advised to seek for traditional treatment. The attack of the claimant by python has made it difficult for the claimant to sit for a long time due to internal injuries thereby depriving the claimant of practicing his profession of driving to earn livelihood. As at now the claimant cannot endure long journey.

87. In law an employee can sue his employer for compensation in tort or in contract, the choice is his. One of such instance where employee can sue is in case of injury at work. In this kind of case the employee is at liberty to choose to either sue in tort or contract. See Mathew V Kuwait Buch Tel. Coro (1959) 2 QB 57, Afrab Chem Ltd V Owoduenyi (2014) LPELR-23613(CA). Therefore, the failure of the claimant in this suit to sue based on negligence does not defeat the claim, if same can be sustained in contract.

88. There is no dispute that there is contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant. The only area of difference is that for the defendant the employment was not permanent, the claimant’s employment is part time, a temporary one.

89. The general rule is that the contract of employment may be in any form, and not necessarily in writing. A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct of the parties if it can be shown that such a contract was intended although not expressed. It should be noted that the inference may be rebutted if such service is incompatible with employment. This may happen where the parties are relations or where the service was performed on the basis of a charity. Nevertheless, a contract of employment may be oral unless there is a statute requiring writing or deed. The Labour Act has made ample provisions for the protection of wages, contracts of employment and terms and conditions of employment of workers in Nigeria. Section 91 of the Labour Act, defined "a worker" to mean: "Any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written and whether it is a contract of service or contract personally to execute work or labour. There are certain exceptions enunciated in sub-paragraph (a) to (f) stated thereat.

90. By dictate of the law Employers are mandated by Section 7 of the Labour Act, to give to their workers, written statements of particulars of the terms and conditions of their employment not later than three months after the beginning of their period of employment. It is also pertinent to note that in Nigerian justice system, employees or workers whose employers deliberately failed to give letters of employment were never left unprotected by the law. They were jealously guarded to the extent that their employers who refused to follow the dictates of the law may, when exposed, face the wrath of the law, and become liable on conviction to a fine.

91. By Section 7 Subsection (6) the stipulation for written statements to be given does not apply to workers who, already, were given such letters of employment stating the terms and conditions of their employment by their employers.? It must also be emphasized that by virtue of the provisions of Section 21 (1) (c) of the Act, if an employer fails to comply with his obligation to give his employee a written statement of the specified terms of employment, i.e., where he contravenes Section 7 of the Act, he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding N800 or for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine not exceeding N1, 500.00.

92. In the instant case, the defendant which was under compulsion as prescribed by the Labour Act, to issue the claimant with a letter of employment embodying the terms and conditions of his employment, and, who equally defaulted in so doing, had argued that the claimant’s failure to tender letter of employment is fatal to the claimant’s case. The fact that the alleged employment of the claimant by the defendant was oral and not written is not enough justification for the defendant to deny the claimant’s employment of efficacy. I am in no doubt that the claimant was employed by the defendant. It was not the fault of the claimant that the defendant failed in its obligation as an employer of service to give him a letter of employment stating his terms and condition of employment. It is settled law that any employer who fails to give his employee a written statement of the terms and conditions of his employment about three months after the beginning of his employment is estopped from relying on the failure of the worker or his said employee to tender in evidence the said terms and conditions of his employment. See the case of Nwakhoba vs. Dumez (Nig) Ltd (2004) 3 NWLR Part 861 p. 461 where it was held that it would not be proper for the Respondent, the employer now, to contend that the Plaintiffs failed to produce in evidence the NJIC conditions of service under which they claimed, when, the evidence in Court established that it was the Defendant/Respondent who failed in its statutory obligation to provide any of the Plaintiffs workers with conditions of service as provided for in Section 7 (1) of the Labour Act. It was stated that, the Defendant contravened the provisions of Section 7 (1) of the Labour Act and as such shall not be permitted in law to profit from its own wrong doing per Oduyemi J.C.A at 484.

93. Therefore, the failure of the defendant to comply with the law by not issuing letter of employment to the claimant stating the terms and conditions of the employment, the defendant will be estopped from benefitting from his own wrong-doing. The defendant will be bound by any credible evidence adduced by the claimant to support his claim. See Mobil Producing Nig. Unlimited V Udo (2008) LPELR-8440(CA).

94. In an employer-employee or master- servant relationship, in addition to or to the exclusion of the express terms of the contract, the law imposes certain implied terms into the contract. These implied terms may either be founded on statute, by custom, by practice, public policy or such terms as to ensure that the master does not subjugate the servant to a condition of servitude or slavery or like terms. While the Court should not concern itself with the reasonableness or otherwise of the contractual terms between the contracting parties, the law would not allow the imposition of servile conditions on an employee. Any such contract which tends to impose servile obligations upon any person would not be enforceable. See Afrab Chem Ltd V Owoduenyi (2014) LPELR-23613(CA), Davies v. Davies (1887) 36 Q - D 359. Where a term is permitted to be implied into a contract, the implied term has the same binding effect on the parties. In the case at hand since the contract of the claimant was not deduced into writing, the court will resort to implied terms in determining the dispute submitted for resolution by the parties.

95. There is an inherent and implied duty imposed on the employer to take reasonable care to ensure safety of employee in a master servant relationship notwithstanding any term in the contract to the contrary. See Iyere v. Bendel Feed & Floor Mill Ltd   (2009) All FWLR (Pt 453) 1217, where contract of employment was defined thus:

"A  contract  of  employment  connotes  a contract of service or apprenticeship whether express or implied… The general requirement of law where there exist a service relationship between employer and employee is that the former is under a duty to take reasonable care for the safety of the latter in all circumstances of the case so as not to expose him to an unnecessary risk.  See Latimer v. AEC Ltd  (1953) AC 643. The level of his duty is same as that of employer’s common law duty of care in the law of negligence. Paris V Stepney Borough Council (1951) AC 367 @ 384, Lord Oakley had this to say:

"The duty of an employer towards his servant is to take reasonable care for his servant's safety in all the circumstances of the case."

96. It is clear from the above decision and the facts of this case the claimant being an employee of the defendant, the defendant has a duty towards his employee to take reasonable care for his safety in all the circumstances.

97. Now, the germane question to be considered is whether the python’s attack on the claimant which resulted in injury suffered by the claimant which arose out of and in the course of his work for the defendant, the defendant would be responsible and liable to pay compensation to the claimant.

98. The law on proof is well settled that he who asserts has the burden of establishing his assertion. The claimant is the one claiming occurrence of an incident in the circumstances the onus is on the claimant to establish his positive assertion. See U.A.C (Nig) Ltd v. Joseph Orekyen (1961) 1 All NLR 719.

99. In any event, in a claim for compensation for injury, the claimant must established or fulfilled certain conditions for him to be entitle  to claim for injury in the course of employment these conditions are:-

a.      The law requires the claimant to show that the employer has a duty of care owed to the worker,

b.      An accident has occurred,

c.      The accident was caused because the employer failed to exercise the duty of care, and

d.      The accident caused personal injury to the employee.

100.                     As pointed out earlier, the duty of care may either be contractual or delictual in character and that the claimant is at liberty to sue either for breach of contract or for negligence. In the case at hand the claimant chose to sue under the duty of care in contract law. The establishment of contractual relationship of master servant under the common law between the claimant and defendant has satisfied the requirement of showing existence of duty of reasonable care. This means the defendant will be under an obligation to provide safety in employment. See Wilson V Tyneside Window Cleaning & Co. (1958) 2 QB 110 @ 116; (1958) 2 W.L.R. 900.

101.                     Whether the employment of the claimant is part time, temporary or permanent, an employer has an obligation to provide safety to the employe.

102.                     Now, having regards to the given facts in this case, what this court is to determine is whether the claimant suffered injury and the injury arose out of the claimant’s employment with the defendant. The claimant has averred that he suffered injury as a result of encounter with python. In support of his claim the claimant tendered exhibits A, B, C and D.

103.                     It is the case of the claimant which had not been disputed due to lack of evidence to support the defendant’s defence, that the claimant was a truck driver he was employed as such and transferred to Abeokuta and on arrival at Abeokuta no accommodation arrangement has been made by the defendant for the claimant. Consequently, the claimant was left to be sleeping at road side or inside truck, bathing on the open and defecating in the bush. On 27/1/2019 four days on arrival at Abeokuta, the claimant after a routine meeting with his colleagues was pressed, he went to the bush to answer call of nature, a python attacked him and threw him to a distance and all his shouts for help could not be heard by his colleagues. Consequently, the claimant becomes unconscious and was taken to traditional healer where he regained his consciousness.

104.                     According to the claimant the report made to the project Manager of the defendant about the incident was ignored. The claimant could not afford orthodox treatment when his sister took him to a hospital as he could not do the tests recommended by doctor. The claimant also alleged he went to Lagos University where a report was issued to him. See exhibit C.

105.                     The evidence of the claimant as contained in the witness statements on oath and under cross examination seems to be at variance, in that, in the pleading the claimant’s case is that he was wound up to waist by the python while exhibit C shows that claimant was bitten by python, this seems to be contradictory. However, a calm view of the averments in the pleadings and exhibit C, it will be correct to say that the germane issue is claimant was attacked by python.

106.                     It is also clear from the evidence before the court that the claimant suffered injury as a result of encounter with python and this would not have happened if the defendant has not breached the implied duty of care imposed on the defendant by law. The duty of master is the same as that of employer’s common law duty of care in the law of negligence and the duty of an employer towards his servant is to take reasonable care for his servant’s safety in all the circumstances of the case. This clearly means that the employer (defendant) has the duty of taking reasonable care of the claimant while in the service of the defendant. See Afrab Chem V Oduonye (supra). Therefore, the defendant’s failure to provide toilet facility to the claimant was what led to the claimant going to bush to relieve himself of call of nature.

107.                     Though, the defendant had stated in its pleading that it had provided flourishing containers well-furnished but it did not state for whom the flourishing containers were provided for apart from its expatriate staff. There is also no evidence establishing the said claim of making containers available or providing toilets. There was also no evidence adduced by the defendant to show that it has allocated container and toilet to the claimant. The defendant failed to prove its positive assertion in that regard. More particularly, when DW1 has testified under cross examination that he had never been to Abeokuta where claimant was sent to work.

108.                     There is also no evidence to show that the defendant has done anything to ensure claimant received medical care when the incident was reported to Mr. Suong the project Manager in charge of Abeokuta. The defendant’s refusal or neglect to take care of claimant’s medical needs is pointer to defendant’s disregard of its duty of reasonable care.

109.                     It is settled law that it is not every injury suffered by an employee during the period of employment that entitles the employee to damages or compensation. It is only the injury suffered out of and in the course of his employment that the employer will be liable. The phrase ‘’out of and’’ and in the course of the employment’’ are used conjunctively in the sense that the accident or injury must have occurred not only during the employment but must have occurred’ ‘’out of and in the course of the employment.’’ In effect the employment must be the cause of the injury and the injury must have occurred in relation to the employment or incidental to the employment. See Afrab Chem Ltd V Owoduenyi (supra). This means there must be some causal relationship between the injury sustained and the employment, thus, an injury must arise out of employment. An injury suffered by an employee for whom the employer would be liable may include any harm to the health of an employee either by accident or by disease which arises in the course of and out of employment and incapacities in whole or in part. The defendant owes a personal obligation to the claimant on the requirement of duty of care. From the facts available the claimant has satisfied the requirement of the injury arising from and out of his employment.

110.                     It is my view that in the circumstance of this case the claimant has suffered injury in the course of his employment which entitles him to compensation. This is because there is an implied duty of care, for the defendant to ensure safety of the claimant more particularly when claimant was transferred to a new location. Even if claimant is not on transfer the mere fact that he was sent on official assignment to Abeokuta to perform duty of driving truck to transport materials is enough to make claimant liable to compensate claimant for the injury sustained while in Abeokuta at the behest of the defendant.

111.                     I hold without any hesitation that the claimant has proved that he suffered injury in the course of his employment with the defendant. Therefore, he is entitled to compensation for the injury sustained as a result of encounter with python and failure of defendant to take care of claimant’s health condition. This finding means that the claimant is entitled to compensation or damages.

112.                     From all I have been saying above, the claimant has made out a case for payment of compensation for injury he suffered in the course o of his entitlement. Taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, I award Two Million Naira N2,000,000.00 compensation in favour of the claimant. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira), compensation to the claimant for the injury sustained in the course of his employment with the defendant.

113.                     Payment of the monetary award shall be made within 30 days, failing which 10% interest per annum shall apply.

114.                     Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Sanusi Kado,

Judge.

REPRESENTATION:

Eta L. Akpama, Esq; for the defendant