IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT LAGOS

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

 

Date: Friday, 30th January 2026                        SUIT NO. NICN/LA/276/2024

 

BETWEEN

 

MR TOYIN ALABI                                 …       CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

LAGOS WASTE MANAGEMENT AUTHORITY         …                 DEFENDANT

 

JUDGMENT

 

1.       The Claimant commenced this suit on 10th October 2024, seeking the following reliefs:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.       Upon receiving the originating process, the Defendant entered an appearance on 20th January 2025, and subsequently filed a statement of defence on 6th March 2025, which was regularised on 27th March 2025. The Claimant filed a reply to the statement of defence on 24th March 2025. The trial commenced on 16th July 2025 and concluded on 7th October 2025. During the trial, the Claimant testified in support of his claims and tendered nine exhibits, and was cross-examined. The Claimant’s second witness, Mr. Adewunmi Adegbite, a pensioner of the Defendant, also testified in support of the Claimant’s claims and was cross-examined. The suit was then adjourned to 7th October 2025 for the defence. At the resumed hearing on 7th October 2025, Mr. Abiodun Shitta, the Head of the Pension Unit of the Defendant, testified in defence of the suit and was both cross-examined and re-examined. The suit was adjourned to adopt the final written addresses. The parties exchanged their final written addresses, which their counsel adopted on 27th November 2025, and the matter was set down for judgment. 

 

 Brief facts of the case

 

3.       The Claimant asserts that he was employed by the Lagos Waste Disposal Board in 1980, holding Payroll No. 1963. In 2006, the organisation changed its name to the Lagos Waste Management Authority. Following his compulsory retirement in 1990, the Claimant received a compensation payment of N2,592.00 and was instructed to return for his pension benefits upon reaching 60 years of age. When the Claimant turned 60 in 2020, he visited the Defendant’s office to claim his pension, but it was not paid because his file was missing. Consequently, he sent a letter to the Defendant’s Managing Director on 25th May 2022, but did not receive a response. His solicitor then issued a demand letter on 30th September 2022, followed by another on 20th December 2022, but neither yielded a positive outcome. Despite numerous calls, letters, and visits to the Defendant’s office, his requests were consistently ignored. As a result, he filed this lawsuit. The Defendant has denied liability, claiming that no employment relationship existed between it and the Claimant.

 

Summary of final written addresses

 

4.       The learned counsel for the Defendant nominated one issue for determination in the final written address filed on 22nd October 2025:

Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs being claimed against the Defendant, having regard to the totality of pleadings and evidence placed before the Honourable Court?

 

5.       The learned counsel referenced Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended) [“the Evidence Act”] and the case of Sharing Cross Educational Service Ltd v. Umaru Adamu Ent. Ltd & Ors [2020] 10 NWLR (Pt 1733) 580, among others, arguing that the Claimant bears the burden of proof, which he did not discharge. As a result, the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought. Counsel objected to the admissibility of Exhibits 1, 3, and 4, stating that they are photocopies and that the necessary foundation for their admissibility was not established. Additionally, counsel objected to Exhibit 5, another photocopy, on the grounds that it was non-compliant with the Evidence Act. Counsel also raised an objection to Exhibit 8, citing a breach of Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act because it was obtained while this suit was anticipated, referring to the case of Diverse Assets Management Ltd v. Wema Bank Plc [2023] 12 NWLR (Pt 1897) 133 for support. Furthermore, counsel argued that Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 5 violated Section 1(2)(d) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Practice Direction 2022, which mandates the establishment of an appropriate foundation. Counsel contended that, assuming these documents are admissible, the Court should not give them any probative value. After reviewing Exhibits 1 and 2, counsel asserted that the Defendant never authorised the issuance of Exhibit 1 by the Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Claimant’s witnesses failed to connect the Claimant to Exhibit 1. By comparing Exhibit 4 with paragraph 4 of the Claimant’s sworn statement, the learned counsel pointed out that the payroll numbers provided by the Claimant are inconsistent, and it was the Claimant’s responsibility to clarify this ambiguity, which he did not do.

 

6.       In examining Exhibits 5 and 8, the learned counsel questioned the credibility of these exhibits. The counsel pointed out that Exhibit 8, obtained after Exhibit 6, violated Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act, urging the Court to take note of this in light of Adeleke v. Oyetola [2023] 11 NWLR (Pt 1894) 121. It was argued that the reply to the statement of defence dated 20th March 2025 should be considered abandoned due to a lack of supporting evidence. In addressing the claim of an employment relationship, the counsel argued that the Claimant failed to demonstrate any such relationship with the Defendant, which would justify the Defendant taking action on the Claimant’s demands, relying on the case of Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR (Pt 1960) 42-43. Citing Waya v. Akaa [2023] 10 NWLR (Pt 1893) 537 at 562, the counsel contended that the Claimant has not established his entitlement to reliefs 1, 2, 3, and 4, asserting that the Claimant’s identity cannot be confirmed using Exhibits 5, 8, and 10. Consequently, the counsel argued that since reliefs one to four have failed, relief five is also bound to fail. Regarding the Defendant’s lack of response to Exhibits 2, 6, 7, and 9, the counsel argued that the Defendant is not obliged to respond to business letters, citing the cases of Thompecotan & Sons [Nig] Ltd v. Jos South L.G.C [2021] 4 NWLR (Pt 1766) 277 and Rematon Services Ltd v. Nem Ins. Plc [2020] 11 NWLR (Pt 1744) 281. The Court was urged to dismiss the Claimant’s case.

 

7.       The learned counsel for the Claimant raised four issues for determination in the final written address dated 11th November 2025, but filed on 13th November 2025:    

 

 

 

 

 

8.       On the first issue, the learned counsel contends that the Claimant has successfully established his employment relationship with the Defendant. As a result, he was compensated by the Central Bank of Nigeria upon his retirement. The Defendant, however, denies the existence of this employment relationship as a means to evade payment of the Claimant's benefits. Upon reviewing Exhibit 1, counsel reiterated that the Claimant has indeed proven his employment relationship with the Defendant, citing payroll number 1963. In response to the Defendant's argument presented in paragraph 4 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel asserts that the Claimant laid the necessary foundation before submitting Exhibit 1. Addressing the Defendant's claim that the Defendant’s name does not appear on the cheque, counsel clarified that the name change from Lagos Waste Disposal Board to Lagos Waste Management Authority (LAWMA) occurred in 2006, as referenced in paragraph 3 of the statement of facts. Citing the case of Bamgboye v. University [1999] 10 NWLR (Pt 622] 290 and Iyere v. Bendel Feeds and Flour Mill Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt 1119) 300, among others, counsel argued that an employment relationship can be demonstrated through oral, documentary, and circumstantial evidence. Counsel summarised the Claimant’s evidence regarding his payroll number and asserts that the Claimant has proved the existence of an employment relationship with the Defendant through Exhibits 1, 3, 4, 10, and the testimony of CW2. Additionally, it was argued that the Defendant has not provided evidence to the contrary by producing the employment register, as required under Section 91 of the Labour Act. It is implied that if the register were produced, it would be detrimental to the Defendant's case, per Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act. The failure to produce this evidence constitutes an admission by silence, relying on Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak [Nig] Ltd & Ors [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt 1118) 77. The Court is urged to resolve the first issue in favour of the Claimant.

 

9.       In addressing the second issue, counsel summarised the Claimant’s evidence regarding the missing appointment letter and the affidavit of loss. He noted that the Defendant is obligated to maintain staff records and that pensions are statutory entitlements. In response to paragraph 4.7 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel argued that the Claimant’s affidavit of loss is legitimate and can be accepted even in the absence of the appointment letter, which cannot be located, as per Sections 89 and 90 of the Evidence Act. Counsel emphasised that the Defendant is responsible for keeping such records. Furthermore, in response to paragraph 4.4 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel asserted that Exhibit 8 was created following the directive of the Defendant’s Managing Director. He reiterated that an employment relationship can be established through means other than a letter of employment, as demonstrated in this case, where the Claimant relied on Exhibits 1, 3, and 4. To support this argument, counsel cited the cases of Okoebor v. Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt 834) 444 and Ibrahim v. B.N. Plc [2015] 62 NLLR [2174] 560. Therefore, counsel contended that the Claimant should not lose his statutory and constitutional rights to pension benefits simply due to the loss of the appointment letter. The learned counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has established his employment relationship and is entitled to pension arrears and benefits, regardless of the missing appointment letter.

 

10.     In addressing issue three, counsel reiterates that the Claimant has demonstrated the existence of an employment relationship with the Defendant. In response to paragraph 4.4 of the Defendant’s final written address and Exhibits 1-8, counsel argued that the appropriate foundation has been laid and urged the Court to admit Exhibits 1-9 into evidence due to their relevance. Contrary to the Defendant’s counsel's assertions, counsel maintained that, like any employee, the Claimant has only one payroll number, 1963, as confirmed by the defence witness and in a letter dated 25th May 2022. Counsel equates the Defendant’s refusal to produce the staff register with withholding evidence and urged the Court to invoke the provisions of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act. The Court is urged to conclude that the Claimant has established, through credible evidence, an employment relationship with the Defendant, to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and grant the claims.

 

11.     Regarding issue four, counsel reiterates the Claimant’s evidence concerning his employment history and the appropriate foundation related to Exhibit 1, asserting that the Claimant has established his employment relationship through Exhibit 1, contrary to the Defendant’s submissions. In response to paragraph 4.14 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel argued that the Defendant’s submission is misdirected. It was also submitted that using CW2’s salary structure resulted in the Claimant’s claim of N6 million pension from 2020 to 2024. In addressing paragraph 4.15 of the Defendant’s final written address, counsel maintained that the submission is not valid given the Claimant’s evidence of mental distress, agony, and ill health caused by the Defendant’s refusal to pay his pension arrears and benefits. The Court is urged to invoke Order 47 Rule 7 of the NICN [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017, and to disregard the arguments put forth by the Defendant. Moreover, it was argued that the Defendant’s refusal to respond to Exhibits 2, 6, 7, and 9, which were duly acknowledged, was intended to deny the Claimant his pension arrears and benefits. The Court is urged to grant the Claimant’s claims and dismiss the Defendant’s defence.

 

12.     Arguing the reply on points of law dated 19th November 2025, the learned counsel submitted that the Claimant misquoted Section 91 of the Labour Act and contended that, in any case, Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act is inapplicable due to the Claimant's failure to provide credible evidence of an employment relationship between the parties. The case of Skye Bank Plc v. Adegun [2024] 15 NWLR (Pt 1960) 35-36 was cited as support for this assertion. The Court was urged to disregard the Claimant's argument. In response to paragraphs 5.2 to 5.9 of the Claimant’s final written address, counsel reviewed Exhibits 5 and 8 and argued that both affidavits are contradictory, referencing Dibia v. Tubonimia [2024] 11 NWLR (Pt 1950) 462. Additionally, the counsel asserted that it is unethical for counsel to provide evidence on behalf of a party to a case; thus, it was improper for the Claimant’s counsel to fill the gaps in Exhibit 1 in the final written address that were left by the Claimant in his evidence. The Court was urged to dismiss the Claimant’s arguments in this regard and also dismiss the suit.

 

Preliminary issues

 

Objection to Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 5

 

13.  The Defendant objected to Exhibits 1, 3, 4, and 5 because they are photocopies and an appropriate foundation was not laid for their admissibility in evidence. However, the Claimant insists that a proper foundation was laid before tendering Exhibit 1, but was silent on Exhibits 3, 4, and 5. I have reviewed the referenced exhibits, and note that Exhibit 4 is original, which implies that the objection relates only to Exhibits 1, 3, and 5. Section 89 of the Evidence Act provides that “Secondary evidence may be given of the existence, condition or contents or a document when:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14.     I reviewed the proceedings of 16th July 2025. The Claimant established a foundation for Exhibit 1 by stating that he cashed the cheque. However, no foundation was laid for Exhibits 3 and 5, which are photocopies and therefore inadmissible. As they were improperly admitted, Exhibits 3 and 5 are hereby expunged from the records.

 

          Objection to Exhibit 8

 

15.     The Defendant raised an objection to Exhibit 8, arguing that it was prepared in anticipation of this lawsuit, which violates Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act. This Section states: “Nothing in this section shall render admissible as evidence any statement made by a person interested at a time when proceedings were pending or anticipated involving a dispute as to any fact which the statement might tend to establish.” I have reviewed Exhibit 8, which is a sworn affidavit of loss. It was sworn on 20th December 2022, while this lawsuit was filed on 10th October 2024. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the affidavit was created in anticipation of this case, given its timing relative to the initiation of the action. Therefore, I find the objection unfounded and overrule it. 

 

          Issue for determination

 

16.     The sole issue for determination in this case is whether the Claimant is entitled to judgment on his claims. The law is trite that whoever desires the Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which she asserts must prove that those facts exist. By the combined force of Sections 131, 132, 133, 134, and 136[1] of the Evidence Act, the Claimant bears the initial burden of proving the pleaded facts on the balance of probabilities.  The Claimant must succeed on the strength of his case, not on the weakness of the defence, absence of defence, or admission by the Defendant. If the Claimant fails to discharge this burden satisfactorily, his claims will be dismissed without considering the Defendant's case, as the Defendant is not required to prove its defence under these circumstances. In such a situation, there would be no evidence to rebut, leading to a judgment against the Claimant for lack of evidence. Please refer to Adama & Ors v. Kogi State House of Assembly & Ors [2019] 16 NWLR [Pt 1699] 501 at 531, Igwenagu v. Hon. Minister, Federal Capital Territory & Ors [2025] 7 NWLR [Pt 1988] 145 at 173-174, Nsude & Ors v. Nichodemus & Ors [2025] 4 NWLR [Pt 1982] 253 at 280, and Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] LPELR-45151[SC] 51-53.

 

17.     The Claimant who seeks declaratory relief must demonstrate his entitlement to the declaration by credible evidence and will succeed on the strength of his case, not on the weakness of the defence or admission by the Defendant. As granting declaratory relief involves the Court’s discretion, the Claimant must place sufficient materials before the Court to justify the declaration, as illustrated in the cases of Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] 7 SC [Pt III] 164 at 213, U.T.C. Nigeria Plc v. Peters [2022] 18 NWLR [Pt 1862] 297 at 312, 313, and Osho v. Adeleye & Ors [2024] 8 NWLR [Pt 1941] 431 at 452. 

 

18.   In resolving employment disputes, the Court will refer to the employment contract and any other stipulations that are incorporated, or deemed to have been incorporated, into the contract, as stated in the cases of Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2019] 17 ACELR 87 at 108 and Gbedu & Ors v. Itie & Ors [2020] 3 NWLR [Pt 1710] 104 at 126. The employment contract serves as the foundation for any action taken in the event of a breach. The success of the case hinges entirely on the terms agreed upon, or deemed to have been agreed upon, by the parties involved, as outlined in Umera v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [2022] 10 NWLR [Pt 1838] 349 at 386 and Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [2024] 16 NWLR [Pt 1965] 515 at 549.

 

Summary of evidence

 

19.   The Claimant sought seven reliefs and testified in support of his case alongside Adewunmi Adegbinte, a pensioner of the Defendant. They submitted ten documents, which were marked as Exhibits 1-10. These are: a copy of a cheque dated 27th December 1990, a request for retirement benefits dated 25th May 2022, an application for leave pay dated 10th February 1981, warning letter, sworn affidavit of loss with an attached crime diary extract, a letter from the Claimant's solicitors dated 30th September 2022, with an attachment, a letter from the Claimant's solicitors dated 20th December 2022, another sworn affidavit of loss dated 20th December 2022, pre-action notice dated 26th April 2023, and the ID card of the Claimant’s second witness, Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte.

 

20.     The Claimant testified that he was employed by the Lagos Waste Disposal Board in 1980, with payroll number 1963, which later changed its name to the Lagos State Waste Management Authority. He was assigned to the signwriting and painting department and worked in various sections as a signwriter and painter at the Defendant's offices in Ijora Olopa, Lagos Rollpark, Yaba, Ikeja, Mushin, Adekunle, and Surulere from 1980 to 1990. Following his compulsory retirement in 1990, he received ?2,592 in compensation via a Central Bank of Nigeria cheque dated 27th December 1990, and was advised to return to receive his monthly pension upon reaching 60 years of age. When he reached the pensionable age of 60, he visited the Defendant's head office in Ijora Olopa but was told they would process his pension benefits soon. Despite making several visits to the Defendant's pension unit to inquire about his monthly pension, his requests were not honoured because his file could not be found. Consequently, he sent a letter dated 25th May 2022 to the Defendant's Managing Director, attaching his application for leave pay, a warning letter dated 22nd January 1982, an affidavit of loss dated 22nd January 1982, and a police extract dated 18th March 2015.  

 

21.    Although the Defendant assured him that they would consider his case and get back to him, they failed to provide his monthly pension and did not contact him. Mr. Alabi also mentioned that his colleagues, Mr. Kayode Odusanya, Alhaji Yusuf Lasisi, and Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte, all pensioners of the Defendant, have sworn written depositions confirming that he was an employee and a colleague of theirs at the Defendant. Due to the Defendant's refusal to respond to his letters demanding pension benefits, he enlisted the law firm of Theo Aziegbemi and Co. They, on his instructions, sent several letters of demand for pension arrears and benefits to the Defendant's Managing Director, but received no response. However, Mr. Dosunmu, a Director of the Defendant, made a call to Theo Aziegbemi Esq. without addressing his benefits. Mr. Alabi stated that his counsel, Theo Aziegbemi & Co., sent another letter dated 20th December 2022, to the Defendant's Managing Director, as well as a pre-action notice and a final demand notice dated 26th April 2023, which the Defendant received on 10th May 2023. Nevertheless, the Defendant did not comply with his demands. Mr. Alabi further stated that his sworn affidavit regarding the loss of the appointment letter undermines the Defendant's defence that the document was not produced. He asserted that the Defendant has no valid defence to the suit and seeks the reliefs outlined in the statement of facts. 

 

22.     During cross-examination, Mr Alabi stated that the Defendant's name is not written on the cheque; instead, it is from the Central Bank of Nigeria, as it was given to him. When told that Exhibit 3 was to be completed in quadruplet, Mr Alabi said he received only one copy, with the remaining copies retained in his file with the Defendant. He did not serve the Defendant a notice to produce Exhibit 3. When shown Exhibit 4, he noted that his payroll number is 1963, but the number on the warning letter is 217. He clarified that the payroll number is indicated in the warning letter. When shown Exhibit 5 and asked to refer to paragraph 2 of his deposition, he admitted he did not mention the loss of his employment letter because Dosunmu asked him not to. While his employment letter is not included in the affidavit of loss, another affidavit mentions it. Mr Alabi clarified that although the employment letter was not mentioned in the crime diary extract, all other documents were lost, but reiterated that he has another affidavit in which it is mentioned. When shown the attachment to Exhibit 6, page 5, and asked to read the underlined sentence, he said he could not read it. He was informed that the documents should be produced in triplicate; he replied that the other copies are with the Defendant. When asked whether he served the Defendant a notice to produce it, he said the Defendant possessed the document. Upon reviewing page 6 of Exhibit 6, he observed that the payroll number written on the second line after his name is 217, stating it is not his payroll number but part of his warning letter. When asked whether it was possible to have two payroll numbers, he said it was signed by the workshop manager. He confirmed that a warning is part of the disciplinary process and acknowledged that the administration department is responsible for staff discipline, although he was not disciplined at that time. He confirmed that the workshop supervisor is not part of the administration department, as the supervisor manages the workshop. When shown Exhibit 8, he denied that his deposition was made after his letters dated 30th September 2022 and 20th September 2022. He confirmed he is claiming N6,000,000 in pension arrears for four years. When asked for the particulars of the claim, he stated that the exhibits serve as his evidence. Additionally, he confirmed his claim for N20 million in general damages for health challenges; however, he has not submitted any medical report to the Court. He denied that the Defendant is a responsible government agency. Finally, when asked whether there was any documentation confirming he was 60 years old when he was compulsorily retired in 1990, he said, “Bring my file, but I can show you my driver’s licence. I have it here.”

 

23.     The Claimant’s second witness’s evidence, Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte, corroborates the Claimant’s evidence. However, paragraph 19 of his sworn statement violates the rules of pleading by being argumentative and drawing conclusions. Please refer to Attorney-General of Anambra State v. C. N. Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd [1987] LPELR-614[SC] 20, Usman v. Garke [1999] 1 NWLR (Pt 587) 466 at 481-482, Nwanji v. Coastal Services Nigeria Ltd [2004] LPELR-2106[SC] 22, Alibo & Ors v. Okusin & Ors [2010] 3-5 SC (Pt I) 41 at 62, Buhari v. INEC & Ors [2008] 4 NWLR (Pt 1078) 546 at 623 623, Takuma & Anor v. Liman & Ors [2009] LPELR-5000[CA] 18, Sanni-Omotosho v. Obidairo [2014] LPELR-23006[CA] 27-28 and Addison United Nigeria Limited v. Lion of Africa Insurance Limited [2010] LPELR-3596[CA] 29. It is accordingly struck out. 

 

24.     Mr. Adegbinte, a pensioner of the Defendant, testified that he was employed alongside the Claimant in 1980 by the Lagos State Waste Disposal Board, which later became the Lagos Waste Management Authority. He retired in 2005 and has been receiving his monthly pension since then. He identified the Claimant as his colleague at the Waste Disposal Board, where they worked together in the signwriting and painting department in Ijora Olopa, Lagos, with Mr. Adegbinte serving as the Claimant's supervisor. He confirmed that the Claimant worked in several departments of the Defendant at Ikeja, Surulere, Adekunle Yaba, Ijora, Olopa, and Roll Park. Mr. Adegbinte stated that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a staff member and was entitled to receive a monthly pension. He also confirmed that the Claimant's payroll number was 1963. Upon the Claimant's retirement in 1990, he received a compensation cheque for N2,562.00 (two thousand five hundred and sixty-two naira) and was instructed to return to the Defendant upon reaching the age of 60 to claim his pension benefits, like his other colleagues. Mr. Adegbinte stated that the Claimant informed him that the Lagos State Waste Disposal Board had issued the Claimant an appointment letter, which was lost in transit along with other documents, when the Claimant relocated from Oshodi to Makoko, Yaba, Lagos State. As a result, the Claimant submitted an affidavit of loss for important documents dated 20th December 2022. Mr. Adegbinte stated that he is aware that the Claimant and his legal counsel wrote several demand letters to the Defendant regarding his pension and other benefits, but received no response. The Claimant also sent a letter, dated 25th May 2022, to the Defendant's Managing Director, demanding his retirement benefits. This letter included an application for leave pay bearing the Claimant's name, Mr. T. Alabi, as well as a warning letter issued to the Claimant by the Lagos State Waste Disposal Board on 22nd January 1982, and a sworn affidavit for loss of important items dated 16th March 2015.

 

25.     Mr. Adegbinte further testified that the numerous demand letters from the Claimant's solicitors for pension arrears and benefits were ignored by the Defendant’s Managing Director. However, a director of the Defendant, Mr. Dosunmu, did make a phone call to the Claimant’s solicitor, but the Claimant's pension benefits remain unpaid. Consequently, the Claimant's solicitors, Theo Aziegbemi & Co, sent a Pre-Action Notice and a final demand for payment of retirement benefits, dated 26th April 2023, which the Defendant received on 10th May 2023. Mr. Adegbinte reiterated the Claimant's reliefs and maintained that since the Claimant’s appointment letter was lost in transit, the sworn affidavit of loss serves as sufficient proof in the circumstances. He asserted that the Defendant has no defence against the Claimant’s suit. In addition to the affidavit of loss, the testimonies of Mr. Dewunmi Adegbinte, Alhaji Yusuf Lasisi, and Mr. Kayode Odusanya provide adequate proof that the Claimant is a former employee of the Defendant and is entitled to his pension benefits. 

 

26.     During cross-examination, Mr. Adegbinte confirmed that he is a pensioner of the Defendant and possesses his ID card. He validated his employment letter before he started receiving his pension. He did not obtain his pension through a police report. He had one payroll number, but was assigned a different one after his retirement. He was unaware that the Claimant did not present any documents to the Court, but he was one of them. Asked whether he had any documents to substantiate his claims in paragraphs 5 and 6 of his sworn statement that the Claimant was employed in 1980 by the Lagos Waste Disposal Board and was entitled to receive monthly pensions from the Defendant, he replied that he did not. Furthermore, he is not familiar with the Claimant's financial claim.

 

27.     Mr. Abiodun Shitta, the Defendant’s witness and Head of the Pension Unit, denied the existence of any employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant. Mr. Shitta stated that the Defendant, as a responsible agency of the Lagos State Government, was established under the Lagos Waste Management Authority Law. The agency manages various issues without bias. Mr. Shitta acknowledged receiving the Claimant’s letters dated 25th May 2022, 30th September 2022, 20th December 2022, and 26th April 2023. However, he denied that the Defendant’s management had directed the Claimant to come for his gratuity and pension upon reaching the age of 60, as the Claimant had never provided the required documents for the Defendant to proceed with the necessary steps. Mr. Shitta emphasised that staff members are available to attend to the public, including the Claimant, with due responsibility and decorum. He denied that the Claimant was given any assurance, as the Claimant failed to produce his employment letter, confirmation letter, or exit letter from the Defendant's employment. According to Mr. Shitta, the Defendant lacks the authority to process gratuity and pension for any staff member using an Affidavit for Loss of Important Items. He characterised the suit as a frivolous attempt at "gold digging" and asserted that the Claimant has no legal claim against the Defendant.

 

28.     During cross-examination, Mr. Shitta confirmed that he is the Head of the Pension Unit, responsible for maintaining the Defendant's pension records. He stated that the Defendant keeps accurate pension records for all employees. His payroll number is 6883, and he has a staff file. However, he was not aware that the Claimant was employed from 1980 to 1990, as he was hired on 8th October 2001, and was not employed by the Defendant during that earlier period. He could not confirm whether the Claimant's payroll number is 1963, and noted that the Claimant is not listed in the Defendant’s nominal roll. Mr. Shitta does not know who holds the payroll number 1963. When asked why the Defendant failed to pay the Claimant’s benefits, Mr. Shitta explained that there are no records of the Claimant. The Defendant requires the Claimant's appointment and exit letters to verify his employment. He stated that the Defendant responded to Exhibits 2, 6, 7, and 9, stating that two payroll numbers are involved, and the Claimant attached a CBN cheque. Pressed further, Mr. Shitta admitted that the Defendant did not respond to the letters. He was not aware that the Claimant had sworn an affidavit of loss. When Exhibit 8 was shown to him, Mr. Shitta admitted that the Claimant had indeed sworn to this affidavit. When asked whether the Defendant replied, Mr. Shitta said, “No.” When asked who issued the employment letter, Mr. Shitta reiterated that the Claimant was not the Defendant’s staff and that the payroll numbers provided by the Claimant do not exist. Told that the Claimant visited the Defendant and met with Mr. Dosunmu, Mr. Shitta maintained that the Claimant was not an employee and that the payroll numbers cannot be verified. He was told that Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte, a witness, confirmed that the Claimant was indeed one of their staff members. Mr. Shitta responded that he deals with the union, not with individual pensioners, and added that Mr. Adegbinte provided the necessary documentation before being added to the pension register. When it was pointed out that Exhibit 1 was issued by the employer at the time (i.e., the Lagos Waste Disposal Board), Mr. Shitta said he was not aware of this, stating that no Lagos organisation would issue a CBN cheque. Mr. Shitta rejected the assertion that the Defendant’s refusal to pay the Claimant’s benefits is in bad faith, maintaining that the Claimant was not a LAWMA staff member. During re-examination, Mr. Shitta confirmed that on 16th July 2025, one Adewunmi Adegbinte provided evidence in this case and confirmed that Mr. Adegbinte has been receiving his pension. Mr. Shitta also confirmed that Mr. Adegbite provided his appointment letter, confirmation of appointment, and exit letter, while the Claimant did not provide the referenced documents.

 

Evaluation of evidence

 

29.     I have considered the evidence presented by both parties, including oral and documentary evidence. The Claimant seeks a declaration that he was an employee of the Defendant and, as a result, is entitled to gratuity, pension arrears, and all benefits associated with being a pensioner. Additionally, the Claimant is seeking N6,000,000 in unpaid pension, damages, and ancillary orders. The Claimant testified and called Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte as his second witness, presenting 9 exhibits, which are marked as Exhibits 1-9. The Defendant denies any employment relationship with the Claimant, which is the basis for its refusal to process the Claimant’s pension claims. 

 

30.     The law is settled that the party who seeks a Court judgment regarding any legal right or liability, dependent on the existence of asserted facts, must prove that those facts exist. This is supported by Section 131 of the Evidence Act. The parties dispute the existence of an employment relationship. Therefore, the Claimant, whose claim is based on this employment relationship, must provide credible and conclusive evidence to demonstrate its existence, as outlined in Sections 131(2), 132, and 131(1) of the Evidence Act. Proof, in legal terms, is the process by which the existence of facts is established to the satisfaction of the Court. This principle is highlighted in Jega v. Ekpenyong [2025] 11 NWLR (Pt 1998) 33 at 120-121. Evidence is considered credible when it is worthy of belief, and conclusive when it leads to a definitive outcome. Such evidence must be strong and not contradicted by the opposing party, as noted in Jega v. Ekpenyong [supra], Dec Oil and Gas Limited v. Shell Nigeria Gas Limited & Anor [2021] 11 NWLR (Pt 1786) 75 at 117, and Bimba Agro Livestock Company Limited v. Landmark University [2020] 15 NWLR (Pt 1748) 465 at 496. It is important to note that while civil cases are decided based on the preponderance of the evidence, that evidence must be admissible, relevant, and credible. It should be conclusive and provide a level of certainty that aligns with the circumstances of the case at hand. Please refer to A.B.C. [Transport Company] Ltd. v. Omotoye [2019] 14 NWLR (Pt 1692) 197 at 212, Ayanru v. Mandilas Limited [2007] 10 NWLR (Pt 1043) 462 at 485, and Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Min., F.C.T. & Ors [2010] 7 NWLR (Pt 1192) 171 at 205-206.

 

         Existence of an employment relationship between the parties

 

31.     The Claimant’s case is that he was employed in 1980 by the Lagos Waste Disposal Board, whose name was subsequently changed to Lagos Waste Management Authority, the Defendant, with a payroll number 1963. He was compulsorily retired in 1990 and paid N2,592 in compensation, with a directive to return for his monthly pension upon attaining the retirement age of 60 years. He attained that age in 2020, went to the Defendant’s office, and was told they would process his pension. On further visits to the Defendant, he was told that his file could not be found. In response to the Defendant’s tardiness, he wrote a letter dated 25th May 2022, attaching documents to substantiate his employment claims. At this point, the Defendant assured him that it would look into it and get back to him, but it still did not pay his pension. He listed some of his former colleagues who had agreed to testify in his favour, including Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte. Following the Defendant’s refusal to pay his pension, he wrote several letters, but received no response; hence this suit. Interestingly, the Claimant tendered a photocopy of the cheque for N2,592. This is a Central Bank of Nigeria cheque. The Defendant disputed this cheque and stated that no Lagos State organisation would issue a Central Bank of Nigeria cheque to its staff. Despite this, the Claimant did not adduce further evidence to explain the origin and purpose of the cheque. Additionally, there are no documents supporting the cheque. No retirement letter, no statement of final entitlements, no approval memo, nothing. A photocopy of a cheque without any supporting history makes the Claimant’s evidence that the cheque was issued as compensation upon his compulsory retirement incredible. 

 

32.     Furthermore, although the Claimant listed some of his colleagues at the Lagos Waste Disposal Board who were willing to testify in support of his claim, only one, Mr. Adewunmi Adegbinte, testified. His evidence is that he retired in 2005 and has been receiving his pension since that time. One may ask: assuming the Claimant was indeed employed by the Lagos Waste Disposal Board, why was he compulsorily retired? Was he retired as a disciplinary action? Was he summarily dismissed? Why were his other colleagues not retired at that time? There are no answers. The Claimant did not explain the basis for his compulsory retirement in 1990, when, according to his evidence [paragraph 8 of his sworn statement], he was just about 30 years old, since he turned 60 in 2020. During cross-examination, the Claimant admitted that a warning letter is part of the disciplinary process but claimed he was not disciplined at that time. It is unlikely that the Lagos Waste Disposal Board would have compulsorily retired the Claimant and directed him to come back for his pension in 2020, after 30 years. The more compelling inference, from the Claimant’s evidence, is that if he was the Lagos Waste Disposal Board employee, he may have been summarily dismissed. 

 

33.     That is not all. The Claimant tendered Exhibit 3, an application for leave pay. Curiously, even though the application was approved, the approved leave allowance was deleted. The document, which is evidently a photocopy, appears mutilated. The Claimant’s alleged signature on the document differs from his signature on the sworn statement and Exhibit 2. I found in this judgment that a proper foundation was not laid for tendering this exhibit, and accordingly expunged it from the records. Therefore, Exhibit 3 lacks probative value. Although Exhibit 4, which purports to be a warning letter, is on original paper, the signature on the document is a corruption of the Head of Department's signature as seen in Exhibit 3. As noted by the Defendant, the payroll number on Exhibit 4 is 217, which is different from the Claimant’s payroll number in paragraph 4 of his sworn statement and Exhibit 3. During cross-examination, the Claimant could not explain why he had two payroll numbers. Additionally, the ink used to write the reference number in the top-left corner is different from that used for the rest of the document. After carefully reviewing the document, I conclude that Exhibit 4 lacks probative value. Exhibit 5 is a photocopy of the Claimant’s sworn affidavit of loss. As found in this judgment, the Claimant did not provide any explanation for tendering a photocopy of this document. Consequently, it was expunged from the records. Despite this, and as manifest from the Claimant’s testimony during cross-examination, the Claimant’s employment letter was not mentioned in the affidavit and the crime diary extract as one of the missing documents. During cross-examination, the Claimant, in response to a question that the employment letter was not mentioned in the crime diary extract, said he “stated that all other documents were lost”. Both in the affidavit and crime diary extract, the phrase “with other relevant items unmentioned” is used. However, this does not explain the omission. A document that is this important could not have been omitted if the Claimant ever possessed it. Exhibit 8 is the correction of Exhibit 5, and shows that it was made for the purpose of the application for pension, and lacks any probative value. 

 

34.     Exhibits 6, 7, and 9 consist of letters from the Claimant’s solicitors addressed to the Defendant. Although the Defendant did not respond to these letters, Exhibits 7 and 9 show that the parties engaged in several discussions regarding the issue. Therefore, the absence of a response does not constitute an admission of the letters' contents. It is not the law that failing to reply to a business letter automatically implies acceptance of its contents. In the case of Trade Bank Plc v. Chami [2003] 13 NWLR (Pt 836) 158 at 219, Salami, JCA (as he then was) stated: “This is a business correspondence which, like exhibit 2, the addressee ought to have replied. It is, however, settled that it is not in every case that failure to give a reply to letters written on business matters and received by one of the parties to the proceedings would be taken as strong evidence that the party receiving the letter admitted what was asserted in its contents. The courts are enjoined not to take this as an absolute rule; rather, they should consider each case on its own merit, examine the circumstances under which the letter was written, and decide whether it is a case where an inference of admission could safely be drawn.” This principle was reiterated by the same Court in Thompecotan & Sons Nigeria Limited v. Jos South Local Government Council [2021] 4 NWLR (Pt 1766) 277 at 289, where it was concluded that the failure to respond to the Appellant’s letter was not an admission in that particular case. After carefully considering the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, I conclude that the Defendant’s failure to respond to the Claimant’s letters does not amount to an admission of their contents. This is especially true given that the Defendant maintained that the Claimant was never its employee, a fact the Claimant has always known.

 

35.     The evidence presented by the Claimant's second witness was meant to support the Claimant's assertion that he was an employee of the Lagos Waste Disposal Board. I have reviewed the witness's sworn statement, which largely reiterates the Claimant's testimony (see paragraphs 2 to 5 of Mr. Adegbinte’s statement). However, in paragraphs 7 and 8, it becomes clear that his testimony is based on information provided by the Claimant rather than his own personal knowledge. This reliance on hearsay is further evident in paragraphs 9 to 19(b) of his statement. During cross-examination, Mr. Adegbinte was asked if he had any documents to support his claims in paragraphs 5 and 6 regarding the Claimant's employment with the Lagos Waste Disposal Board and his status as an ex-employee of the Defendant entitled to monthly pensions. Mr. Adegbinte replied, "I don’t have." He also admitted that he was not aware of the Claimant’s financial claims or the fact that the Claimant had not provided any supporting documents. In essence, the Claimant’s second witness appeared to merely confirm the Claimant’s assertions without providing credible evidence; he did not speak from personal knowledge but rather from information solicited from the Claimant. As noted earlier in this judgment, neither of the Claimant’s witnesses has provided any evidence about what happened to the Claimant in 1990 or why he was allegedly compulsorily retired that year at the age of 30 without any documentation.

 

36.     Generally, an employment contract does not follow a specific format; it may be oral, written, or a combination of both. It may also be inferred from the conduct of the parties involved. This is supported by the cases of Iyere v. Bendel Feed and Flour Mill Ltd [2008] 7-12 SC 151 at 163 and Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak [Nig] Ltd & Ors [2008] 4-5 SC [Pt 11] 117 at 128. In Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited [2013] 32 NLLR [Pt 92] 243 at 323, this Court noted that, “The determination of the existence of an employment relationship should be guided by the facts of what was actually agreed and performed by the parties, and not by the name they have given the contract. That is why the existence of an employment relationship depends on certain objective conditions being met [the form in which the worker and the employer have established their respective positions, rights and obligations, and the actual services to be provided], and not on how either or both of the parties describe the relationship. This is known in law as the principle of the primacy of facts, which is explicitly enshrined in some national systems. This principle might also be applied by judges in the absence of an express rule. The ILO concluded by advising that the judge must normally decide on the basis of the facts, irrespective of how the parties construe or describe a given contractual relationship.” While an employment relationship can be proved orally, by documents, or both, or by inference from the conduct of the parties, the evidence supporting the inference of an employment relationship must be credible and conclusive. In this case, the Claimant attempted to establish an employment relationship using both documentary and circumstantial evidence. Unfortunately, none of the evidence provided is credible or conclusive. The Claimant left several questions unanswered, and even documents such as the warning letter and the application for leave pay were shown to lack probative value. Given these circumstances, I conclude that the Claimant has failed to establish a prima facie case for the Defendant to defend against.

 

37.     The Defendant's defence is that it has no relationship with the Claimant, who has failed to provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate any connection. The Defendant also asserts that it did not instruct the Claimant to return upon reaching the age of 60 for his pension. As a result, the Claimant has no valid legal claim against the Defendant. During cross-examination, the Defendant's witness was unable to confirm the Claimant’s employment or payroll number. Additionally, the witness stated that the Claimant does not appear on the Defendant’s nominal roll. When pressed further, the witness maintained that the Defendant has no records regarding the Claimant and requires the Claimant's employment and exit letters to verify his employment status. The Defendant’s evidence is consistent, credible, conclusive, and unchallenged, and I am bound to accept it and act on it. In Oforlete v. State [2000] 12 NWLR (Pt 681) 415 at 436, the Supreme Court held that where there is unchallenged evidence, the Court is not only entitled to act on or accept such evidence but is in fact bound to do so, provided that such evidence by its very nature is not incredible. Therefore, when the entire evidence is placed on the imaginary scale, it is clear that the evidence preponderates in favour of the Defendant. As a result, I find that the Claimant has not established any employment relationship with the Defendant. 

 

          Has the Claimant established his pension entitlement?

 

38.     Assuming I am incorrect, which I believe I am not, I will examine the claim for N6,000,000 in pension arrears. The Claimant has failed to specify his last salary, and there is no pleading or evidence supporting this claim. It is unclear how the Claimant arrived at the sum of N6,000,000. When asked during cross-examination for details regarding the claimed amount, the Claimant stated that the information could be found in the exhibits. I have thoroughly reviewed the exhibits, and there is nothing in them that demonstrates the Claimant’s salary or pension entitlements. The learned counsel for the Claimant argued in paragraph 8.3 of the final written address that the computation was based on the salary structure of the Claimant’s second witness. However, there is no pleading or evidence regarding any salary structure, whether for the Claimant, his witness, or the Defendant. Additionally, there is no evidence of the salary of the Claimant’s second witness. Therefore, the counsel's argument is, with all due respect, misguided. It is important to note that arguments presented by counsel must be based on admissible evidence before the Court. Counsel cannot attempt to present evidence in the final written address, as this is not allowed. The law clearly states that allegations made in counsel's address are not valid for consideration. Any address by counsel regarding factual issues must be based on facts proven by evidence in the Court record. Counsel cannot argue facts that are not substantiated by the evidence presented in Court. Any argument based on such unproven allegations is inherently speculative and baseless. Please refer to Daniel v. Damen [2024] 10 NWLR (Pt 1947) 485 at 516. Therefore, I reject that submission.

 

39.     In this judgment, it has been established that when resolving employment disputes, the Court will refer to the employment contract and any other relevant stipulations that are incorporated or considered to be incorporated into the contract. This is supported by the cases of Adekunle v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2019] 17 ACELR 87 at 108 and Gbedu & Ors v. Itie & Ors [2020] 3 NWLR (Pt 1710) 104 at 126. The employment contract serves as the foundation for any actions taken in the event of a breach. The success of such cases depends entirely on the terms agreed upon, or deemed to have been agreed upon, by the parties involved, as highlighted in Umera v. Nigerian Railway Corporation [2022] 10 NWLR (Pt 1838) 349 at 386 and Gyubok v. The Federal Polytechnic, Bauchi & Anor [2024] 16 NWLR (Pt 1965) 515 at 549. Moreover, the claim for pension arrears is categorised as special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and proved to be awarded. If special damages are not explicitly pleaded and proven, the claim will fail. This principle is illustrated in MTN Nigeria Communications Limited v. Aquaculture Cooperative Farmers Society Limited [2016] 1 NWLR (Pt 1493) 339 at 356. In this case, the necessary pleading and evidence are lacking. There is no evidence to support the Claimant’s claim. Therefore, I find as a fact that the Claimant has not successfully established his claim for pension arrears.

 

          In the premises, the sole issue for determination is resolved against the Claimant.  

 

Consideration of the reliefs

 

40.     Relief one is for a declaration that the Claimant is a former employee of the Defendant before he was compulsorily retired and asked to come back to the Defendant when he is 60 years old to collect his pension benefits and thus entitled to be paid his pension arrears of 4 years, monthly pensions, gratuities, and other pension benefits. A claim for a declaration is not automatically granted. The Claimant must prove his entitlement to the right before the Court can issue a declaration. Please refer to Nduul v. Wayo & Ors [2018] 7 SC (Pt III) 164 at 213. In this judgment, I determined that the Claimant has not established any employment relationship with the Defendant. Furthermore, I found that the Claimant has failed to substantiate his claim for pension arrears. I adopt my reasoning and conclusions from paragraphs 31 to 39 above and hold that the Claimant has not demonstrated his entitlement to this declaration. Therefore, the claim is denied.

 

41.     Relief two is for a declaration that the Claimant, as a former employee of the Defendant, is entitled to be paid all his gratuities, pension arrears, benefits, remuneration, and privileges as a pensioner of the Defendant. This claim is similar to the first, which has been denied, and should also fail. Please refer to Ukelere v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc [2011] LPELR-3869[CA] 29. Therefore, it is denied.

 

42.     Relief three is for an order for payment of N6,00.000.00 [six million naira only] to the Claimant, being unpaid pension arrears for four years, from 2020 - 2024 by the Defendant. I found in this judgment that the Claimant has not successfully established his claim for pension arrears. I adopt my reasoning and conclusion in paragraph 39 above and hold that this claim has not been established, and it is hereby denied.

 

 

 

43.     Relief four is for an order for N20,000.000.00 [twenty million naira only] damages for failure to pay the Claimant his pension benefits, thereby causing the Claimant mental torture, agony, pain, ill-health, and compounding the Claimant’s hypertensive and diabetic health challenges. General damages are those that the law presumes to be the direct, natural, or probable consequence of the act in question. They are a type of monetary compensation awarded at the Court’s discretion to alleviate losses caused by the actions of the opposing party, as established in Nigerian Railway Corporation v. Ojo [2021] LPELR-55971[CA] 40-41. General damages are intended to compensate for actual injury. To qualify for an award of general damages, the Claimant must demonstrate that he has suffered a legally recognisable loss due to the actions or omissions of the Defendant, as illustrated in Ecobank Nigeria Limited v. Saleh [2020] LPELR-52024[CA] 83-85. In this judgment, I have concluded that the Claimant has not demonstrated any employment relationship with the Defendant. Additionally, I have found that the Claimant has failed to provide evidence to support his claim for pension arrears. Consequently, there is no basis for an award of damages. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

44.     Relief five is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant his monthly pension for the rest of his life, subject to all upward pension reviews. This claim relies on reliefs one and two, both of which have been denied, and thus should also fail. Please refer to Ukelere v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc [2011] LPELR-3869[CA] 29. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

45.     The sixth claim is for interest on the sum of [c] and [d] at the rate of 21% per annum from when the action was instituted till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until the final liquidation. A party claiming pre-judgment interest must both plead and prove it. However, this requirement is not met in this case. The Court is authorised by Order 47, Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017, to award post-judgment interest at a rate of no less than 10% per annum. Since this Court has not made any monetary award, there is no basis for an award of pre-judgment or post-judgment interest. Therefore, this claim is denied. 

 

46.     The seventh claim is for the cost of N500,000.00 [five hundred thousand naira only], being the cost of this action. In litigation, costs generally follow the event, and the successful party is entitled to his costs, regardless of whether these costs are specifically claimed, unless there are exceptional reasons to deny them, as stated in Egypt Air Limited v. Ibrahim & Anor [2021] LPELR-55882[CA] 35-36. The Court has broad discretion to award costs, which must be exercised judiciously and with careful consideration of the circumstances. Please refer to Order 55, Rules 1 and 5 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria [Civil Procedure] Rules, 2017. After a thorough evaluation of the evidence presented and my findings in this case, I conclude that the Claimant is not entitled to the costs of this action. Therefore, this claim is denied.

 

47.     Ultimately, the Claimant's suit is unsuccessful and is dismissed.  Parties shall bear their costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

…………………………………..

IKECHI GERALD NWENEKA

JUDGE

          30/1/2026

 

 Attendance: Claimant present, Defendant absent

 

          Appearances

 

Theo A. Aziegbemi Esq. for the Claimant

 

          Lekan Alabi Esq. for the Defendant