IN
THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN
THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN
AT IBADAN
BEFORE
HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS
DATE:
9TH APRIL, 2025 SUIT NO: NICN/AB/03/2020
BETWEEN
Mr. Omene Andy Robinson Claimant
AND
1. Mr. Nasarvali Dudekeh
2. Shongai Technologies Limited Defendants
REPRESENTATION
Femi
Aborisade Esq. with Rasheedat Akinrinde,
Rukayat
Jigan and Mariam Yusuff for the Claimant
Sir
J. T. Ogunniyi with C. B. Ayankoso for the 2nd Defendant
JUDGMENT
1. Introduction & Claims
1. The facts of this case as revealed from
the processes filed and evidence led are that the Claimant was employed as a
Machine Operator in the 2nd Defendant while 1st Defendant
was the Operations Manager of the 2nd Defendant. It is the case of
the Claimant that the 1st Defendant as Operations Manager of the 2nd
Defendant harassed and maltreated him while at work at about 3.20 pm on 8/9/19;
that the 1st Defendant meted out slavish and vicious punitive
measures on him by slapping and beating him as a means of managerial control
for which he was hospitalized at the medical facility of the 2nd
Defendant- Shirsh Medical Clinic
where the Claimant was treated for about 4 days and incurred some expenses on
medications he purchased. Claimant averred that he reported the incident at
Sango Police Division on 9/9/19 where the 1st Defendant was
questioned and pleaded that the case be settled out of the Police Station; that
the Defendants have refused to pay him his monthly salaries and allowances and
that he is entitled to the sum of =N=812,646.00 as earned but unpaid salaries
and bonus for December 2019 using his July salary pay slip less all other
statutory deduction starting from the month of September, 2019 till June 2020
when his employment was terminated without notice and for no reason. Both 1st
and 2nd Defendants denied liability to the Claimant while the 2nd
Defendant made certain counter claims as well.
2. On the basis of the above abridged facts
the Claimant commenced this suit by a General
Form of Complaint on 17/6/2020. Pursuant to the Order of Court made on
13/2/23, Claimant having changed his Counsel filed an amended statement of
facts dated 16/2/23 on 27/2/23 and sought the following reliefs against the
Defendants –
1. A declaration that the acts of
harassment at work, slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the
Claimant by the 1st Defendant as a means of managerial control of
the Claimant in the course of work in the 2nd Defendant on the 8th
day of September, 2019 are unlawful, illegal and constitute unfair labour
practices.
2. A declaration that the 1st
and 2nd Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injury
suffered by the Claimant as the result of the acts of harassment at work,
slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant, a Managerial Cadre level representing the 2nd Defendant,
as Claimant’s employer, at the 2nd Defendant’s factory on the 8th
day of September, 2019 while Claimant was in the service of the 2nd
Defendant and in the course of work.
3. A declaration that the 2nd
Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant his earned but unpaid remuneration from
September 2019 till 24 June 2020.
4. A declaration that the Claimant is
entitled to compensation by the Defendants for damages suffered as the result
of the Defendants’ unfair labour practices, harassment at work and slavish
treatment of the Claimant, as methods of managerial control, at the 2nd
Defendant’s factory.
5. An Order directing the 2nd
Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=812,646 (Eight Hundred and Twelve
Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Six Naira) in earned but unpaid entitlement
from September, 2019 to 24 June 2020.
6. An Order directing the 2nd
Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=78,176 (Seventy-Eight Thousand, One
Hundred and Seventy-Six Naira) being one month salary in lieu of notice, which
the 2nd Defendant did not pay before terminating the employment of Claimant
for no stated reason and with immediate effect.
7. An Order directing the Defendants,
jointly and severally, to pay the Claimant special damages in the sum of
=N=52,000 (Fifty Two Thousand Naira) for drug purchases on 19/10/2019 and
9/11/2019.
8. An Order compelling the Defendants,
jointly and severally, to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=6,000,000 (Six Million
Naira) as general damages for the injury suffered as a result of the
Defendants’ unfair labour practices, harassment at work and slavish treatment
of the Claimant, as methods of managerial control, at the Defendant’s factory.
9. An Order compelling the Defendants to
pay the Claimant the cost of this action as the Honourable Court deems
appropriate.
2. Defence
& Counterclaim
3. On 1/7/2020 J. T. Ogunniyi of Counsel
entered an appearance and filed separate statements of defence for the
Defendants. In addition to its statement of defence, learned Counsel also filed
for counterclaim on behalf of the 2nd Defendant on 12/4/23 and
argued that the 2nd Defendant is not vicariously liable to pay
compensation and damages to the Claimant in respect of the alleged assault of 8th
September, 2019 said to have been committed by the 1st Defendant
against the Claimant in the factory of the 2nd Defendant. In
response to Claimant’s amended statement of facts, the 2nd Defendant
filed a consequential amended statement of defence and counter claim on 1/7/24
and counterclaimed as follows –
1. A declaration that the Claimant’s
employment with the 2nd Defendant was properly determined vide
letter of termination dated 8th of January, 2020.
2. A declaration that the Claimant having
abandoned his duty post in the employment of the 2nd Defendant,
stays at home and refuses to work and perform his duty since September, 2019
till June, 2020 is not entitled to be paid the sum of =N=812,646 (Eight Hundred
and Twelve Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Six Naira) being salaries and
entitlement for that period which he did not work.
3. A declaration that the alleged assault
against the Claimant in the course of his duties with the 2nd
Defendant was framed up by the Claimant as same was not made known to the 2nd
Defendant in line with the Rules and Regulations contained in the employment
Staff Handbook.
4. A declaration that the 2nd Defendant
is not vicariously liable to pay compensation and damages to the Claimant in
respect of the alleged assault of 8th of September, 2019 said to
have been committed in the factory of the 2nd Defendant.
5. The sum of =N=1 Million against the
Claimant being the expenses incurred by the 2nd Defendant in
defending this suit initiated by the Claimant.
4. It was accompanied by written statement
on oath of one Soji Fagbemi and a list of additional documents to be relied on
at trial.
3. Case
of the Claimant
5. Claimant opened his case on 25/10/23,
adopted his witness depositions of 27/2/23 and 12/5/23 as his evidence in chief
and tendered 20 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence
and marked as Exh. OR1-Exh. OR20.
6. Under cross examination CW1 testified that he was an employee of
the 2nd Defendant; that himself and the 1st Defendant are
bound by Exh. OR3; that on 8/9/19 he
was assaulted by the 1st Defendant; that by Exh. OR3 staff members of the Defendants are not allowed to exhibit
any violent conduct to a fellow staff; that Exh.
OR3 contains procedure to follow for remedy in event of violent conduct by
a staff member; that when he left the Clinic on Sunday he lodged a complaint at
the Police Station; that he was on admission at the Clinic from 8th
to 12th September 2019; that a staff member must be issued a Gate
Pass before leaving the premises of the 2nd Defendant; that before a
staff member is attended to at the Clinic he must present a referral from the
Supervisor; that he was not given any referral to go to the Clinic; that only
the Human Resource Manager has the referral and that while he was at the Clinic
he called his Lawyer on phone.
7. CW1
testified that 1st Defendant slapped him on his left ear once on
8/9/19; that he also pushed him; that it was not his instruction to his Lawyer
to demand Twenty Million from the 2nd Defendant; that the Police
investigated his complaint of assault; that because he was not satisfied with
the investigation he caused another petition to be written to the office of the
Assistant Inspector General of Police,
Police Headquarters, Onikan, which office did extensive investigation of
the matter; that to verify his claim he was sent to General Hospital, Lagos where Exh. OR12 was issued to him; that the Police did not charge anybody
to Court; that it was right for the 1st
Defendant to do the right thing and that when he reported for duty his Unit
Head said he should go and treat himself.
8. On 7/5/24, one Awoyemi Peter testified as CW2.
Witness simply adopted his witness deposition of 12/5/23 as his evidence in
chief. He did not tender any document as exhibit.
9. While being crossed examined by 1st
Defendant, CW2 stated that he was an
outsourced staff of Sky Edge registered
with Ministry of Labour but presently not working with the 2nd
Defendant; that Claimant and the 1st Defendant were employees of the
2nd Defendant; that he is not aware of any Handbook that governs the
employees; that he is a subordinate of the Claimant; that he is aware that by
the rules governing the workers no employee is allowed to exhibit violence
against another employee; that Claimant was slapped by the 1st Defendant
just once; that Claimant did not take any step in reaction and that the one
slap led to the Claimant being admitted in the Hospital.
4. Case
of the Defendants
10. The 2nd Defendant opened its
case on 5/6/24 when one Adesoji Fagbemi testified
on its behalf as DW1. DW1 adopted his
witness depositions of 18/4/23 & 1/7/24 and tendered 25 documents as
exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. ST1-Exh. ST25.
11. In cross examination by the Claimant, DW1 stated that he was not the
Operations Manager of the 2nd Defendant but a departmental Head;
that the letter of termination of appointment was served on the Claimant on
27/6/2020; that he attended several meetings with Human Rights bodies with the
intention of settling the issue and that the Claimant was admitted at the
medical facility of the 2nd Defendant on 8/9/19.
12. 1st Defendant did not attend
the trial despite the fact that he was served requisites hearing notices. He
thus did not take part in this trial at all.
5. Final
Written Addresses
13. At the close of trial and pursuant to the
direction of the Court, the 2nd Defendant filed its final written
address dated 16/1/25 on 17/1/25. In it learned Counsel set down the following
issues for the just determination of this case –
1. Whether the 1st Defendant
committed an acts(sic) of harassment at work, slavish and inhumane treatment by
slapping and beating the Claimant in the course of work in the employment of
the 2nd Defendant on 8th of September, 2019.
2. If issue one is answered in the
affirmative, whether the said harassment, slavish and inhumane treatment of
slapping and beating of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant was a
means of managerial control and unfair labour practice authorized and allowed
by the 2nd Defendant as to make the 2nd Defendant jointly
liable in damages to the Claimant.
3. Whether the 2nd Defendant is
liable to pay to the Claimant salary/remuneration from September, 2019 to June,
2020, a period the Claimant abandoned his duty post without working for the 2nd
Defendant.
4. Whether the 2nd Defendant is
entitled to the reliefs sought in its counter-claim.
14. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel
to the 2nd Defendant opted to argue both issues 1 and 2 together. In
doing so, learned Counsel submitted that going by the Claimant’s Reliefs (a),
(b), (d), (g) and (h) in paragraph 31 of his statement of facts, it is clear
that the Claimant alleges that he was assaulted and injured by the 1st
Defendant and thus prayed to be awarded compensation against the Defendants jointly
and severally; that an allegation of the commission of crime of assault on a
person is an allegation of the commission on that person by Evidence Act; that such an allegation
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt citing Section 135(1), Evidence Act, 2011 & Osalade v. Osalade (2020) LPELR-51165(CA); that in proof of the
allegation Claimant tendered Exh. OR4 which
showed the Claimant to be on a sick bed but which did not in any way prove that
the Claimant was assaulted; that Claimant failed to tender a Medical Report
from Shirish Medical Clinics which is
the medical facility of the 2nd Defendant and that this failure is
fatal to the case of the Claimant. Counsel urged the Court to so hold.
15. Counsel submitted further that the
Claimant asserted that he was on admission for 4 days yet on 9/9/19 he reported
the incident at Sango Ota Police Station, that this raises question as to
whether Claimant was discharged from the hospital admission and readmitted;
that the Police investigated the complaint of the Claimant, found it lacking
merit and hence did not file any charges against either of the Defendants.
Learned Counsel further argued that Claimant failed to exhaust the available
internal procedure for resolving matters of this nature before approaching the
Police and the Court; that Claimant failed to prove that the said harassment,
slavish and inhuman treatment of slapping and beating by the 1st
Defendant was a means of managerial control and unfair labour practice
authorized and allowed by the 2nd Defendant. Learned Counsel
accordingly urged the Court to resolve these issues in favor of the 2nd
Defendant and against the Claimant.
16. With respect to issue 3, learned Counsel
submitted that Claimant is not entitled to any payment for the period he
abandoned his duty post without working for the 2nd Defendant; that Exh. OR3 & Exh. ST2 regulating the
contractual employment relationship between the parties the principle of No Work No Pay is operated by the
Management of the 2nd Defendant and duly accepted by the Claimant;
that when the Claimant presented himself for work on 12/9/19 he was directed to
go back home and treat himself fully and that Claimant did not return to work
until June 2020 when his employment was terminated. Learned Counsel therefore
prayed the Court to hold that Claimant is not entitled to be paid for the
period he was not at work for the 2nd Defendant.
17. On whether the 2nd Defendant is
entitled to the reliefs sought in its counterclaim, learned Counsel submitted
that the 2nd Defendant is so entitled. Counsel adopted his previous
submissions respecting issues 1 to 3 and further submitted that the 2nd
Defendant led uncontroverted evidence that the Claimant left his duty post
since 8/9/19 and has not worked for the 2nd Defendant till the
termination of his employment; that Police investigation did not indict any of
the Defendants and that 2nd Defendant also led evidence to the
effect that she forbids any form of violence in the course of its employment
and no authorization of any form of violence, inhuman treatment as a form of
managerial control in its employment.
18. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant
all the counter claims sought.
19. The 30-page final written address of the
Claimant dated 27/2/25 was filed on 28/2/25. In it learned Counsel set down 3
issues for determination as follows –
1. Whether the 1st and 2nd
Defendants through the acts of the 1st Defendant committed acts of
harassment, inhuman and slavish treatment at work which constituted unfair
labour practices.
2. Whether the 1st and 2nd
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injury suffered by the
Claimant as a result of unfair labour practices, harassment and slavish
treatment meted out to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant as a means
of managerial control of the Claimant in the course of work in the 2nd
Defendant on 8/9/19.
3. Whether the Claimant has proved
entitlement to the reliefs claimed.
20. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that
aside from Exh. OR4, DW1 admitted
under cross examination that Claimant was admitted at the medical facility of
the 2nd Defendant on 8/9/19; that by the transcription of the
meeting between the Claimant, the Managing Director of the 2nd
Defendant and the Human Resource Manager of the 2nd Defendant, Exh. OR16 showed that the 2nd
Defendant was aware of the slavish and punitive treatment meted out to the
Claimant by the 1st Defendant; that indeed Exh. OR17 established the fact that the Human Resource Manager of
the 2nd Defendant at his meeting with the Human Right Initiative for the Downtrodden offered a maximum of
One Million Naira as compensation to the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the
import of the refusal of the 1st Defendant to appear in Court
throughout the proceedings in spite of service of hearing notices and failure
to call evidence in support of his pleadings is that the 1st
Defendant is deemed to have abandoned his pleadings and hence the pleadings
have become dormant citing Chief Saro
Manson & Ors v. Halliburton Energy Services Nigeria Limited & Anor
(2007)2 NWLR (Pt. 1018) 211& Emmanuel Okonkwo v. Kano Agricultural Supply
Co. Ltd & Anor. (2012)LPELR-9466(CA) and that the unchallenged evidence
of the Claimant must be acted upon by the Court.
21. Learned Counsel submitted that the 1st
Defendant is both former employee of the 2nd Defendant and employer
of the Claimant; that 1st Defendant is both an agent and manager of
the 2nd Defendant citing Section
91(1), Labour Act & Ogunbayo
Oluwole Michael v. Fidelity Bank Plc & Anor. Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/350/2013 Judgment of
which was delivered on 13/12/17 and Amalgamated
Union of Public Corporations, Civil Service Technical and Recreational Services
Employees (AUPCTRE) v. Corporate Affairs Commission (CA) & Anor unreported
Suit No: NICN/ABJ/62/2021, the
Judgment of which was delivered on 7/10/21 & Mrs. Ronke Obaribirin Aliyu v. The Director General, Nigerian
Television Authority & Anor Unreported Suit No: NICN/ABJ/240/2021 Judgment of which was delivered on
28/4/22.
22. Learned Counsel submitted further that the
claim of the Claimant is not one of Assault but rather one of harassment
founded on Section 34 of the Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended which protects the
right to dignity of the person, including freedom from humiliating or inhuman
or degrading treatment such as the Claimant was subjected citing Oluremi Tosin Ajayi v. Helmut Rumm
(Unreported) Suit No: NICN/LA/38/2015 & ILO Convention No. 190, 2019 on Violence and Harassment; that from
the standpoint of Convention 190 and
its Recommendation 206 harassment is not limited to physical injury and that
the fact of inhuman treatment, pushing and/or slapping, is sufficient and that
it does not matter if the Police for whatever reason, refuse to charge anyone
to Court. Learned Counsel added that direct supervisor and employer have the
duty to ensure a safe and secure work environment citing Ejieke Maduka v. Microsoft Nigeria Limited & Ors (2014) 41 NLLR
(Pt. 125) 67.Counsel urged the Court to resolve these issues in favor of
the Claimant and hold that the 2nd Defendant is not only aware of
the violence meted on the Claimant but also that both Defendants through the
act of the 1st Defendant committed acts of violence, harassment,
inhuman and slavish treatment at work which constitute unfair labour practices.
23. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that
both Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injury suffered by the
Claimant as a result of unfair labour practices, harassment and slavish
treatment meted out to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant as a means
of managerial control in the course of work in the 2nd Defendant on
8/9/19 citing Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Co.
Ltd v. Soleh Boneh (Nig.) Ltd (2000) LPELR-1432(SC) & Bello v. Dadah &
Anor (2016) LPELR-40337(CA) where the Court citing Bayley v. Manchester, Sheffield Lincolnshire Railway Co (1873)LR 8 CP
148 LJCP 78, LT 366 pointed out that where a servant is acting within the
scope of his employment, and so acting does something negligent or wrongful,
the employer is liable even though the acts done may be the very reverse of
that which the servant was actively directed to do.
24. With respect to a defence of common
employment, learned Counsel cited Section
12(1), Labour Act, Cap. L.1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004 and
submitted that such a defence is not available to the 2nd Defendant
in this case. Counsel therefore prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor
of the Claimant and hold that 1st and 2nd Defendants are
jointly and severally liable to the Claimant in this case.
25. On issue 3, Counsel submitted that the
Claimant has proved his entitlement to all the reliefs he seeks from the Court;
that the claim for unpaid salaries from September 2019 to 24/6/2020 is akin to
special damages which must be strictly proved citing Evong v. First Bank (2019) LPELR-49055(CA); that when Claimant
resumed for work on 14/9/19 he was told by Mr. Parminder Singh Head of Light Package Unit of the 2nd
Defendant told the Claimant that he had not fully recovered and should
therefore go home. Counsel cited Exh.
OR18; that from 2019 to 22/6/2020 when Claimant received Exh. OR10 – the Letter of Termination of
Appointment, Claimant was not paid salary by the 2nd Defendant; that
DW1 confirmed the fact that Claimant
was served Exh.OR10 on 22/6/2020;
that the principle has been established that termination of employment takes
effect when the employee receives the letter and reads it citing Kasali Olugbenga v. Access Bank Plc Suit No:
NICN/LA/430/2013 Judgment of which was delivered on 3/12/15, New Nigeria Bank Ltd v. Obevudiri (1986)3
NWLR (Pt. 29) 387(CA) & Udegbunam Eng. Co. Ltd v. FCDA (2003)10 NWLR (Pt.
829) 487; that by his amended statement of facts =N=812,646.00 is the
earned but unpaid salaries and bonus of the Claimant using Claimant’s July 2019
pay slip – Exh. OR11 less all other
statutory deductions starting from September, 2019 to 24th June 2020
when Claimant’s appointment was terminated.
Counsel added that Exh. OR14 & Exh. OR15 are receipts
in proof of the sum of Fifty Two Thousand Naira for drug purchases on 19/10/19
and 9/11/19. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant the relief as claimed.
26. Learned Counsel further submitted that the
termination of Claimant’s employment without reason is invalid citing Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff
Association of Nigeria (PENGASSAN) v. Schumberger Anadril Nigeria Limited
(2008)11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 164, Article 4 of ILO Termination of Employment Convention, 1982 (No. 158) and Recommendation No. 166 & Bello Ibrahim
v. Eco Bank Plc Unreported Suit No:
NICN/ABJ/144/2018 the Judgment of which was delivered on 17/12/19. Learned
Counsel finally submitted that the Claimant is entitled to one month’s salary
in lieu of notice since he was not so paid in the termination of his contract
of employment in contravention of Exh.
OR3.
27. Finally, learned Counsel prayed the Court
to resolve the 3 issues set down for determination in favor of the Claimant and
grant all the reliefs sought to the Claimant.
6. Decision
28. I have read and clearly understood all the
processes filed by the parties on either side. I listened patiently to the
testimonies of all the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and
carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. I also heard the
oral submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties at the stage of
adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I set down the
following issues for the just determination of this case –
1. Whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement
to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendants or either of them.
2. Whether the 2nd Defendant is
entitled to all or some of its counterclaims against the Claimant.
29. The first relief sought is for a
determination of whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to all or some
of the reliefs sought against the Defendants or either of them. The law remains
trite that whoever approaches the Court for the determination of his rights and
obligations has the burden to prove to the Court that of a truth he is so
entitled. The proof required is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence
which may be oral or documentary or both. Credence is however placed on
documentary evidence in proof of a matter over and above any other of form of
evidence. Where therefore a party who seeks judicial intervention fails to
adduce sufficiently convincing evidence to the Court, the Court is left with no
option than to refuse and dismiss the reliefs sought.
30. The Claimant in the instant case seeks 9
main reliefs from this Court. Reliefs 1 to 4 are however declaratory in nature.
A declaratory relief is discretionary in nature. Thus Uchechukwu Onyemenam, JCA
in Solomon U. Salami v. Okogbo Community
Bank Limited & Ors (2022) LPELR-57584(CA) emphasized in clear and unambiguous terms that a declaratory
relief is granted only where the plaintiff is able to convince the Court, that
where all facts are taken into account, he will be entitled to the exercise of
the Court's discretion in his favor. Also commenting on declaratory relief, Ogunwumiju, JSC said in Attorney General of Rivers State v. Attorney
General of the Federation & Anor (2022) LPELR-57708(SC) that -
"A declaratory relief is a
procedural device for ascertaining and determining the rights of parties or for
the determination of a point of law. Although the power to make a binding
declaration of right is a discretionary power, the Plaintiff must establish a
right in relation to which the declaration can be made. The claim to which the
declaratory relief relates must be substantial. Thus, a declaration will only
be granted where there is a breach of a right. It is the practice that a
declaratory relief will be granted where the Plaintiff is entitled to relief in
the fullest meaning of the word. Furthermore, the relief claimed must be
something which it would not be unlawful or unconstitutional or inequitable for
the Court to grant. It should also not be contrary to the accepted principles
upon which the Court exercises its jurisdiction."
31. It is apparent from the decisions of the
appellate Courts that for the Claimant in the instant case to be entitled to
reliefs 1 to 4 he must prove that he is so entitled in the fullest meaning of
the word.
32. Now the first declaratory relief sought is
for a declaration that the acts of harassment at work, slavish and inhumane
treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st Defendant
as a means of managerial control of the Claimant in the course of work in the 2nd
Defendant on the 8th day of September, 2019 are unlawful, illegal
and constitute unfair labour practices. The facts of this case reveal, in part,
that both the Claimant and the 1st Defendant worked in the 2nd
Defendant. While however the Claimant was a low level staff member, the 1st
Defendant was (and probably still) a senior member of staff of the 2nd
Defendant.
33. The complaint of the Claimant bothered on
the conduct of the 1st Defendant bordering on harassment at work,
slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating. Claimant alleged that
indeed the conduct of the 1st Defendant was a means of managerial
control over him in the course of work. It is perhaps not out of place to
reiterate and state the obvious that the case of the Claimant before this Court
is not one of Assault. Indeed the word Assault
was introduced for the first time by the 2nd Defendant in its 3rd
and 4th Counter claims. I note also that learned Counsel to the 2nd
Defendant in paragraph 4.02A of his final written address had stated that The Claimant failed to prove the alleged
assault against the 1st Defendant beyond reasonable doubt. It is
not in doubt that a set of facts may entitle an aggrieved party to remedy in
both the Civil Court as well as Criminal Court. Such a party is therefore at
liberty to elect in which of the two Courts he prefers to seek remedy for the
wrong against him. The Claimant has approached this Court for remedy in civil
action for the wrong done to him by the Defendants and there appears to be no
law that inhibits him from doing so. I note that in the entire 9 reliefs sought
and indeed throughout his pleadings and the final written address filed on his
behalf, the Claimant did not use or refer or allude to the word assault.
34. The 1st Defendant Mr. Nasarvali
Dudekeh is not a Nigerian national. 2nd Defendant also appears not
to be a Nigerian owned company. The Claimant is a Nigerian. It is on record
that on 1/7/2020 defence processes were filed for the Defendants separately.
The processes were filed by the same learned Counsel on record. However,
throughout the trial of this case, 1st Defendant refused and/or
neglected to appear in Court. He also refused to enter his defence. This is
despite the fact that he was afforded all opportunities required to do so. Let
me reiterate an obvious fact that a party sued cannot be compelled to defend a
suit against him. For, a Defendant who refuses to defend a suit may be
asserting that the case has no basis or that he is ready to abide by whatever
the outcome of the Court’s decision.
35. In the instant case, 1st
Defendant joined issues with the Claimant with respect to allegation of
harassment at work, slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating as a
means of managerial control in the course of work. Claimant led evidence to the
allegations made against the 1st Defendant. Claimant led evidence (Exh. OR4) as to his being admitted in a
medical facility of the 2nd Defendant for treatment of the injury
sustained in the hands of the 1st Defendant. Claimant brought to
Court the CW2 who happened to be
working with him at the time and who witnessed the incident first hand. The
evidence led by the Claimant as to what the 1st Defendant did to him
remained unchallenged. 1st Defendant abandoned his defence in this
case. The reason for doing so appears known to him and him alone.
36. I note throughout this case that the 2nd
Defendant did not challenge or contest the fact that the Claimant was admitted
for treatment at its own medical facility. Would the 2nd Defendant
have allowed the Claimant to be admitted if he had not sustained any injury
which required medical intervention? Now 1st Defendant must be
deemed to have accepted totally all the averments of the Claimant in his
pleadings as well as the evidence led in support of his case. The law is trite
that in an instant as this as the Court of Appeal held in Fabian Uzochukwu v. Taiwo Ibrahim & ors. (2024) LPELR-62242(CA), the
Court is entitled to rely on the available unchallenged or controverted
evidence.
37. Could it be said that the conduct of the 1st
Defendant which forms the crux of this case is “unlawful, illegal and
constitute unfair labour practices” as alleged by the Claimant? The conduct of
the 1st Defendant as alleged by the Claimant and against which there
is no rebuttal is a clear act of violence which the 2nd Defendant
forbids. Exh. OR3 is the Staff Handbook of the 2nd
Defendant. In its paragraph 21 and particularly on page 19, the 2nd
Defendant prohibits Use of violence or
threat to intimidate employees or others. Any act of violence in a
workplace is an invitation to industrial disharmony and a threat to peace in
the workplace. Acts of violence are unlawful. Acts of violence are not
acceptable in the world of work. Acts of violence at workplace are condemnable.
Act of violence at workplace must be condemned by all and sundry.
38. The Constitution
of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended in Section 254C(1)(f) confers exclusive jurisdiction on this Court,
the National Industrial Court of Nigeria
in civil causes and matters relating to or connected with unfair labour
practice or international best practices in labour employment and industrial
relation matters. The Constitution
had earlier frowned at any form of acts which tend to negatively affect human
dignity by making specific provisions to protect human dignity of all and sundry.
Thus in Section 34(1), the Constitution provides –
“Every individual is entitled to
respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly – a. no person shall be
subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment; b. no person shall
he held in slavery or servitude; and c. no person shall be required to perform
forced of compulsory labour”.
39. Exceptions to this provision are contained
in subsection 2 of this section. When the provision of Section 34(1) of the Constitution came up for construction at the
Court of Appeal in Ibrahim Jibrin Nayaya
v. Aishatu Jibrin Nayaya (2023) LPELR-61100(CA) this is what His Lordship
Tani Yusuf Hassan, JCA said –
“By virtue of Section 34(1) of the
Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended), every individual
is entitled to respect or dignity of his person, dignity means the state of
being noble, dignified and in an elevated position. In the instant case, the
Respondent is a sister to the Appellant and therefore deserved respect from the
Appellant who is the elder son of the family. On the other hand, a degrading
treatment is to do unpleasant things to someone and to make him lose respect.
Thus, degradation is a reduction in dignity or rank or degree. See A-C Kebbi
State Vs Jokolo (2020)4 NWLR (Pt. 1715)566 at 572. In the instant case, the
Respondent was not happy when the Appellant called her a bastard and a
prostitute in public, showing no respect to her dignity as an individual
contrary to Section 34(1)(a) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria (as amended).
40. The conduct of the 1st
Defendant and the treatment meted by him to the Claimant on 8/9/19 was a clear
violation of the right to dignity afforded the Claimant by the Constitution.
The conduct showed that the 1st Defendant has no respect for the
human person of the Claimant. The conduct reduced the humanity in the Claimant.
Not only is the conduct wrongful, it is reprehensible. It is easy to simply
hold that within the context of Exh. OR3 and
the Constitution of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, any act of violence in the work place amounts
to unfair labour practice.
41. But even aside from the foregoing the fact
remains that no Nation of the world can be an island to itself and any nation
that seeks to do so will be doing so at its own peril. Thus the need, which is
imperative, to ensure that the Nigerian labour jurisprudence is in tandem with
what is obtainable at the international scene. It was partly in an attempt to
align Nigeria labour and industrial situation with what obtains at the global
level that Nigeria joined the International
Labour Organisation (ILO). ILO at different intervals comes up with Conventions to guide labour relations
and standards in member states. One of such Conventions is Violence and Harassment Convention 190 and Recommendation (No. 206) of
2019. Not only is Nigeria a member of ILO,
she also ratified this Convention on the 8th day of November,
2022 thus making it compulsory for the nation to ensure that her labour and
industrial relations situation comply with the provisions of the Convention. The
Convention in Article 1(a) defines the term “violence and harassment” in the world of work as
referring -
“to a range of unacceptable behaviours and practices, or threats
thereof, whether a single occurrence or repeated, that aim at, result in, or
are likely to result in physical, psychological, sexual or economic harm, and
includes gender-based violence and harassment”.
42. In Article
3, the Convention provides that
it applies to violence and harassment in the world of work occurring in the
course of, linked with or arising out of work:
(a). in the workplace, including public and private spaces where
they are a place of work;
(b). in places where the worker is paid, takes a rest break or a
meal, or uses sanitary, washing and changing facilities;
(c). during work-related trips, travel, training, events or
social activities; (d) through work-related communications, including those
enabled by information and communication technologies;
(e). in employer-provided accommodation; and
(f). when commuting to and from work. Again it is apparent that
the conduct of the 1st Defendant which is the subject of this case
is seriously frowned at and an aberration international best practices in
labour.
43. In its Article
10, the Convention provides for a
wide range of remedies for victims of violence at workplace. Some of these
remedies include reinstatement, compensation and even reimbursement for legal
fees and cost as provided by national laws and practice.
44. Within the context of the Staff Handbook of the 2nd
Defendant, the applicable laws in this country as well as ILO Convention 190 & Recommendation (No. 206), the conduct of
the 1st Defendant is unacceptable and despicable. It is condemnable.
It should be condemned. I condemn it in the strongest of terms. Accordingly, I
find merit in the entitlement of the Claimant to the first declaration sought.
I grant same. I declare that the acts of harassment at work, slavish and
inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant as a means of managerial control of the Claimant in the course of
work in the 2nd Defendant on the 8th day of September,
2019 are unlawful, illegal and constituted unfair labour practices.
45. The second declaratory relief sought is a declaration that the 1st
and 2nd Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injury
suffered by the Claimant as the result of the acts of harassment at work,
slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant, a Managerial Cadre level representing the 2nd Defendant,
as Claimant’s employer, at the 2nd Defendant’s factory on the 8th
day of September, 2019 while Claimant was in the service of the 2nd
Defendant and in the course of work. 1st Defendant was the one whose
act and wrongful conduct led to this suit. This Court has in this Judgment thus
far found the said conduct reprehensible, wrongful and condemnable. It is
therefore not in doubt that he is liable to the Claimant for the consequences
of his wrongful act. Yet, the Claimant has brought an action urging the Court
to hold both Defendants liable. Are the Defendants in this case jointly and
severally liable for the injury resulting from the conduct of the 1st
Defendant? It was the argument of the Claimant that the conduct of the 1st
Defendant was a means of managerial control over him in his workplace while it
was submitted on behalf of the 2nd Defendant that both the Claimant
and the 1st Defendant were employees of the 2nd Defendant
and that what transpired between the two was simply between two employees for
which the 2nd Defendant must not be held liable.
46. I start off the determination of this
relief by restating the obvious state of the law that a Court of law is
entitled to make use of any of the contents of its file. This is immaterial
that such a process or evidence was adopted or not adopted by the parties. The
only caveat being that the purpose must be the doing of justice in the matter
before the Court. In this regards, Abang, JCA in FCT Sports Council & Ors v. Hon. Minister of the FCT & Ors
(2024) LPELR-62920(CA) citing FUMUDOH
VS ABORO (1991) 9 NWLR (Pt. 214) 210 at 219 said -
“I have jurisdiction to make reference
to any process in the Court's file in order to do justice in this matter. This
is so whether or not the 5th Respondent made reference to that process in its
counter-affidavit or written address that has been discountenanced”.
47. At the filing of this case on 17/6/2020, a
statement of defence was filed on behalf of the 1st Defendant. The 1st
Defendant also deposed to a 34 paragraph “Written
Statement of Nasarvali Dudekeh the 1st Defendant” on 1/7/2020
along with the statement of defence filed on 17/6/2020. In it, 1st
Defendant described himself as an Indian and averred in paragraph 1 thus –
“1. That I am the Managing Director of the 2nd
Defendant in this case and by virtue of my position I am familiar with the
facts deposed to herein”.
48. He was to later state his duties as
Operations Manager of the 2nd Defendant in paragraph 7 of the same
deposition. It would thus appear that the 1st Defendant is not
merely an employee of the 2nd Defendant just as the Claimant was
also an employee. The determination as to who is an employer of labour has been
statutorily settled by Labour Act, Cap.
L1 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. The Act in Section 91(1) states
that -
"employer" means any person
who has entered into a contract of employment to employ any other person as a
worker either for himself or for the service of any other person, and includes
the agent, manager or factor of that first-mentioned person and the personal
representative of a deceased employer.
49. Without necessarily defining an employee the section simply defines - "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 a contract personally to
execute any work or labour, but does not include - (a) any person employed
otherwise than for the purposes of the employer's business; or (b) persons
exercising administrative, executive, technical or professional functions as
public officers or otherwise; or (c) members of the employer's family; or (d)
representatives, agents and commercial travelers in so far as their work is
carried out outside the permanent workplace of the employer's establishment; or
(e) any person to whom articles or materials are given out to be made up,
cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented, finished, repaired or adopted for sale in
his own home or on other premises not under the control or management of the
person who gave out the article or the material.
50. The definition of employer under the statute is a robust one. It is an expansive one.
Thus the 1st Defendant who is both the Managing Director as well
Operations Manager of the 2nd Defendant cannot be said to be an
ordinary employee of the same level as the Claimant as argued by the learned
Counsel to the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant is not in
any way or manner inhibited from liability for his wrongful act resulting in
injury to the Claimant. The liability of the 2nd Defendant in the
instant case stems from what is often described as vicarious liability. The
doctrine of vicarious liability posits that a Master would be held liable for
the wrongs of his Servant while acting in the course of his employment.
51. In First
Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chukwuma Ifeanyi Paul (2022) LPELR-57591(CA) the
Court of Appeal noted that the doctrine of vicarious liability is a Common Law
doctrine and explained the essential elements that are sine qua non for the invocation and operation of this very old
doctrine. The Court quoted the decision of the Supreme Court in Ifeanyi Chukwu (Osondu) Ltd v. Soleh Boneh
Ltd (2000) LPELR-1432 (SC), where the apex Court had put its imprimatur on the vexed issue of
vicarious liability, stating inter alia
thus –
"The general principle of law
which has its roots in the earliest years of the common law is that a master is
liable for any wrong even if it is a criminal offence or a tortuous act
committed by his servant while acting in the course of his employment”.
52. As the Court aptly pointed out, the
doctrine means that one person takes the place of another so far as liability
for the tort is concerned. In order to succeed an aggrieved party is under an
obligation to establish the servant's liability for the act and also that the
servant was not only the master's servant but that he also acted in the course
of his employment.
53. In the instant case, I have found that the
1st Defendant is both the Managing Director as well as the
Operations Manager of the 2nd Defendant. I found that the Claimant
was also a staff member of the 2nd Defendant at the time. It is my
finding that the 1st Defendant occupied not just a managerial
position in the 2nd Defendant but that indeed he occupied a senior
managerial position in the 2nd Defendant. It is my finding from the
evidence led that incident wherein the 1st Defendant harassed, beat
and slapped the Claimant on the 8th of September was within the
premises of the 2nd Defendant while Claimant was performing his
duties. It is also my finding that the 1st Defendant was acting for
and on behalf of the 2nd Defendant when he exercised managerial
control over the Claimant via acts of harassment by slapping and beating. On
the authority of judicial decisions from the appellate Courts, the 2nd
Defendant cannot escape liability for the wrongful conduct of its Managing
Director & Operations Manager the 1st Defendant. The bottom line
of my finding is that the Claimant has successfully proved his entitlement to
the relief sought. I grant same as sought. I declare that the 1st
and 2nd Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injury
suffered by the Claimant as the result of the acts of harassment at work,
slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant, a Managerial Cadre level representing the 2nd Defendant,
as Claimant’s employer, at the 2nd Defendant’s factory on the 8th
day of September, 2019 while Claimant was in the service of the 2nd
Defendant and in the course of work.
54. I also grant the 4th relief
sought. The law is settled as the Supreme Court held in Fidelity Bank Plc v. James Olanrewaju & Anor. (2024)
LPELR-62974(SC) that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. The
wrongful acts done to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant on behalf of
the 2nd Defendant is capable of being remedied by award of
compensation. I accordingly declare that the Claimant is entitled to
compensation by the Defendants for damages suffered as the result of the
Defendants’ unfair labour practices, harassment at work and slavish treatment
of the Claimant, as methods of managerial control, at the 2nd
Defendant’s factory.
55. The third relief sought is for a declaration
that the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant his earned but
unpaid remuneration from September 2019 till 24 June 2020. Exh. OR10 is the letter terminating the employment of the Claimant.
It was dated 8th January, 2020. The evidence of the DW1 under cross examination is to the
effect that the letter of termination of appointment was served on the Claimant
on 27/6/2020. It was also part of his evidence that he attended several
meetings with Human Rights bodies with the intention of settling the issue and
that the Claimant was admitted at the medical facility of the 2nd
Defendant on 8/9/19. No explanation was provided as to why a letter dated
8/1/2020 was not served until 27/6/2020. By this piece of evidence, it shows
that Claimant remained in the employment of the 2nd Defendant till
27/6/2020 when he was served Exh. OR10 disengaging
him. One of the purposes of serving letter of termination of employment is to
give notice to an employee of his disengagement from the service of his
employer. Until such a letter is served and received by an employee, he remains
an employee and entitled to all remunerations and other earned benefits for the
period he remains in the employment. Indeed the law remains trite that
termination of employment is not allowed to be made retrospective.
56. The piece of evidence given by the DW1 under cross examination is not only
good but reliable. In Samuel Egbadju
& Ors. v. Daniel Ighofimoni Ureh (2025) LPELR-80231(CA) Ita George
Mbaba, JCA stated the undisputed position of the law on this issue aptly thus -
“...And where a piece of evidence
and/or document is elicited through cross-examination, the same remains good
and admissible evidence in law, the fact that it was not pleaded,
notwithstanding. Of course, such evidence/document could not have been foreseen
for the purpose of pleading, same flowing from the cross fire of
cross-examination in my view, and so could not have been pleaded and
frontloaded by the Plaintiff”.
57. I find this relief proved. Accordingly I
grant same. I declare that the 2nd Defendant is liable to pay the
Claimant his earned but unpaid remuneration from September 2019 till 24 June
2020.
58. The 5th relief sought is for an
Order directing the 2nd Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of
=N=812,646 (Eight Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Six Naira)
in earned but unpaid entitlement from September, 2019 to 24 June 2020. This
relief as well as the 6th relief is akin to a claim in special
damages which Mr. Yemi O. K. Yalaju &
Ors v. Mr. Onome Adidi & Ors. (2022) LPELR-56693(CA) directs must be
specifically pleaded and strictly proved. This Court has already declared the
entitlement of the Claimant to be paid his salaries and allowances till June
2020. Accordingly and taking cognizance of Exh.
OR11, I grant this relief. The 2nd Defendant is ordered to pay
the Claimant the sum of =N=812,646 (Eight Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Six
Hundred and Forty Six Naira) in earned but unpaid entitlement from September,
2019 to 24 June 2020.
59. By the 6th relief, Claimant
seeks an Order directing the 2nd Defendant to pay to him the sum of
=N=78,176 (Seventy-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy-Six Naira) being one
month salary in lieu of notice, which the 2nd Defendant did not pay
before terminating his employment for no stated reason and with immediate
effect. By Exh. OR1 Claimant’s letter
of appointment, Claimant “will be governed by the rules and conditions of
service of the company”. Claimant’s
employment was confirmed by Exh. OR2. Exh.
OR3 is the 2nd Defendant’s Staff
Handbook, Condition of Employment and Rules and Regulation. Paragraph 7 of Exh. OR3 under the heading Period of Notice for a Confirmed Employee states
thus –
“Termination of appointment of all
confirmed staff shall be subject to one month’s notice or payment of one
month’s gross salary in lieu of notice on either side. This notice is not
applicable when the company is dismissing an employee for serious misconduct”.
60. The termination of Claimant’s appointment
was not for serious misconduct. Exh. OR10
is clear and unambiguous on that point. There is no evidence before the
Court to the effect that Claimant was paid a month gross salary or given a
month notice prior to the termination of his employment. I find this relief
proved. I grant same. I order the 2nd Defendant to pay the Claimant
the sum of =N=78,176 (Seventy-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy-Six
Naira) being one month salary in lieu of notice, which the 2nd
Defendant did not pay before terminating the appointment of the Claimant for no
stated reason and with immediate effect.
61. The 7th relief is for an Order
directing the Defendants, jointly and severally to pay the Claimant special
damages in the sum of =N=52,000 (Fifty Two Thousand Naira) for drug purchases
on 19/10/2019 and 9/11/2019. This claim is also akin to a claim in special
damages which according to Niger Delta
Power Holding Company Plc v. Mr. Shimave Antiv (2022) LPELR-57538(CA) requires
specific pleading and strict proof. Aside from the averments of the Claimant,
part of the evidence tendered are Exh.
OR14 & Exh. OR15. These were receipts for the expenses incurred in
purchase of medications on 19/10/19 and 9/11/19. The Defendants did not in any
way or manner challenge these pieces of evidence. I hold that the relief is
proved. I grant same. I order the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the
Claimant special damages in the sum of =N=52,000 (Fifty Two Thousand Naira) for
drug purchases on 19/10/2019 and 9/11/2019.
62. The 8th relief sought is for an
Order compelling the Defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the Claimant the
sum of =N=6,000,000 (Six Million Naira) as general damages for the injury
suffered as a result of the Defendants’ unfair labour practices, harassment at
work and slavish treatment of the Claimant, as methods of managerial control,
at the Defendant’s factory. This Court has declared that the conduct of the 1st
Defendant is wrongful. It is also found that the Claimant sustained injury from
the said wrongful conduct. The Court has also found that both Defendants are
jointly and severally liable. The law is trite that where there is wrong there
will be a remedy. The need for general damages is to assuage the Claimant of
the injury suffered by him from the conduct of the Defendants. General damages
are according to Mr. Michael Eromosele
Aburime & Anor. v. Mr. Lucky Osunbor (2022) LPELR-57590(CA) said to be
damages which the law presumes to flow from the immediate, direct and proximate
result of the wrong complained of. It can hardly be contested that the wrongful
act of the 1st Defendant resulted injury which led to his being
admitted in the hospital. While it may be difficult t o quantify in monetary
terms, that does not inhibit the Court from making award in favor of the
Claimant.
63. Accordingly, the Defendants are jointly
and severally ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Five Million Naira (=N=5,000,000.00)
only as general damages for the acts of harassment at work, slavish and
inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant as a means of managerial control of the Claimant in the course of
work in the 2nd Defendant on the 8th day of September,
2019 are unlawful, illegal and constitute unfair labour practices.
64. Finally on the side of the Claimant, the
Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this proceeding
assessed at Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00) only.
65. I have carefully perused the counter
claims sought by the 2nd Defendant vis a vis the evidence led in
this case. The findings and resolutions of this case respecting the reliefs
sought by the Claimant have made any idea of the 2nd Defendant
succeeding in any of its counterclaims otiose. The counter claims are not
proved. Accordingly I dismiss same without hesitation.
7. Conclusion
66. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and
for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment,
1. I declare that the acts of harassment at
work, slavish and inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by
the 1st Defendant as a means of managerial control of the Claimant
in the course of work in the 2nd Defendant on the 8th day
of September, 2019 are unlawful, illegal and constitute unfair labour
practices.
2. I declare that the 1st and 2nd
Defendants are jointly and severally liable for the injury suffered by the as
the result of the acts of harassment at work, slavish and inhumane treatment by
slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st Defendant, a Managerial
Cadre level representing the 2nd Defendant, as Claimant’s employer,
at the 2nd Defendant’s factory on the 8th day of
September, 2019 while Claimant was in the service of the 2nd
Defendant and in the course of work.
3. I declare that the 2nd
Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant his earned but unpaid remuneration from
September 2019 till 24 June 2020.
4. I declare that the Claimant is entitled
to compensation by the Defendants for damages suffered as the result of the
Defendants’ unfair labour practices, harassment at work and slavish treatment
of the Claimant, as methods of managerial control, at the 2nd
Defendant’s factory.
5. I order the 2nd Defendant to
pay the Claimant the sum of =N=812,646 (Eight Hundred and Twelve Thousand, Six
Hundred and Forty Six Naira) in earned but unpaid entitlement from September,
2019 to 24 June 2020.
6. I order the 2nd Defendant to
pay the Claimant the sum of =N=78,176 (Seventy-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and
Seventy-Six Naira) being one month salary in lieu of notice, which the 2nd
Defendant did not pay before terminating the Claimant for no stated reason and
with immediate effect.
7. I order the 1st and 2nd
Defendants jointly and severally to pay the Claimant special damages in the sum
of =N=52,000 (Fifty Two Thousand Naira) for drug purchases on 19/10/2019 and
9/11/2019.
8. The Defendants are ordered, jointly and
severally, to pay the Claimant the sum of Five Million Naira (=N=5,000,000)
Naira) as general damages for the the acts of harassment at work, slavish and
inhumane treatment by slapping and beating the Claimant by the 1st
Defendant as a means of managerial control of the Claimant in the course of
work in the 2nd Defendant on the 8th day of September,
2019 are unlawful, illegal and constitute unfair labour practices.
9. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the
Claimant the cost of this proceeding assessed at Two Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=200,000.00)
only.
10. I
refuse and dismiss all the counter claims sought for lack of proof by cogent,
credible and admissible evidence.
67. All the terms of this Judgment shall be
complied with within 30 days from today.
68. Judgment is entered accordingly.
___________________
Hon.
Justice J. D. Peters
Presiding Judge