IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTIRAL COURT

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN IN ABUJA

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

 

DATE: JANUARY 22, 2026                                       SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/273/2021

BETWEEN:

BOLAJI OJEYEMI                                                                               CLAIMANT

 

AND

 

TRENNCO POWER LTD                                                                          DEFENDANT          

 

REPRESENTATION

Muhammed Muheeb Ohidaji for the Claimant.

Prof. Bayo Adaralegbe for the Defendant, with E. B. Aigbe Esq.

 

 

JUDGMENT

Introduction and Claims

[1] The Claimant filed this complaint against the Defendants on October 5, 2021 together with the accompanying processes. By order of Court the complaint and accompanying processes were amended and filed on 27th July 2022. The Claimant is seeking the following reliefs:

(i)                An Order directing the Defendant to obtain appropriate the Complainant’s tax clearance from the Abuja Internal Revenue Services.

 

Specific Damages

(1)   An order directing the Defendant to pay the Complainant the sum of N6,845.70k (six thousand, eight hundred forty-five naira, seventy kobo) being total amount due and payable as pension remittance  for the period of June to September 2011 calculated at 7.5% of basic salary, housing allowance and transportation (N22,819 monthly) as set down by the prevailing Pension Act 2011.

 

(2)  An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Complainant the sum of N108,000 (One Hundred and Eight Thousand Naira) being total amount due and payable as pension remittance for the period October 2011 to May 2014 calculated at 7.5% of basic salary, housing allowance and transportation (N45,000) as set down by the prevailing Pension Act 2011.

 

Exemplary Damages

(1)  An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Complainant the sum 0f N100,000,000 (one hundred million naira) as exemplary and punitive damages for intentionally failing to remit pension contributions when due even after deducting from the complainant’s salary.

 

General damages

(1)  An Order directing the Defendant to pay the Complainant the sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) for financial loss of interest accruable for and pension remittance had they been paid when due as general damages.

 

(2)  The sum of N1,000,000 (One Million Naira) being cost of this suit.

 

(3)  The sum of 21% interest on judgment sum from the date of judgment till the date they are fully liquidated.

 

[2] The Defendant filed an amended statement of defence together with the accompanying processes on 24th August 2023. The Claimant did not file a reply.

Case of the Claimant

[3] The case of the Claimant on the pleadings is that he was employed by the Defendants as Administrative Assistant on 8th February, 2011 in Abuja on a gross salary of N38,000.00 (Thirty-Eight Thousand Naira) and was given a three-month probation period. Thereafter his salary was increased to N45,000.00 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira) monthly and in November 2019, his gross salary was further increased to N81,000.00 (Eighty-One Thousand Naira). The Claimant averred that by an email dated 7th January 2020 he applied for a salary advance in the sum of N400,000 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) and by email dated 15th January 2020, the Defendant approved the sum of N250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) and disbursed same on a repayment basis of N10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira) monthly deduction from his salary till full liquidation.  

[4] The Claimant stated that sometime in July, 2020, the Managing Director summoned him to her office where she informed him that his services will no longer be required and that his employment will be terminated, and he would no longer be required to liquidate the outstanding loan sum. The Claimant averred that vide an email dated 10th July, 2020, his employment was effectively terminated and he was paid the sum of N82,356.39 (Eighty-Two Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty-Six Thousand Naira and Thirty-Nine kobo) comprising one month salary in lieu of one month’s notice –N61,103.13 (Sixty-One Thousand, One Hundred- and Three-Naira Thirteen Kobo); prorated salary for the month of July 2020 - N21,253.26 (Twenty-One Thousand, Two Hundred- and Fifty-Three-Naira, Twenty-Six kobo).

[5] The Claimant states that following the termination of his employment, by an email dated 14th July 2020 he thanked the Defendant for writing off the outstanding loan sum of N210,000.00 (Two Hundred and Ten Thousand Naira) and requested that copies of his tax clearance and evidence of pension remittance as deducted from his income over the period of employment be made available to him. The Claimant stated that on 19th August 2020 the Human Resource Manager informed him that his tax clearance certificates were ready for pick up.  Upon receipt of the certificates, he observed that the tax remittances covers only the period of 2016 to 2020, while the period of 2012 to 2015 where not provided; the tax remittance were made to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service instead of the Abuja Internal Revenue Service responsible for tax collection in his place of residence and employment; payment for the period of 2016 to 2020 was done by a same day transaction dated July 27, 2020 despite the monthly deductions of PAYE tax made by the Defendant from his salary.

 

[6] The Claimant averred that on 2nd September 2020, he proceeded to Sigma Pensions to request for his pension statement of account and discovered that his total balance at the time was N131,976.70 (One Hundred Thirty-One Thousand, Nine Hundred- and Seventy-Six-Naira, Seventy Kobo) which was a short fall from what he was entitled to; all payments to his Retirement Savings Account (RSA) was made by a same day transaction dated 21st May 2019 and covering the period of January 2016 – December 2018; the Defendant deducted the sum of N6,480 monthly (Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Eighty Naira) from his salary, and remitted only the sum of N1,800 (One Thousand Eight Hundred Naira). The Claimant averred that on 29th January, 2021 he observed that the Defendant by a single transaction dated 21 of January 2021 made pension remittances into his RSA for the period of January 2019 –May, 2020 bringing the total amount in his account to N520, 175.56 (Five Hundred and Twenty Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy- Five-Naira Fifty-Six kobo).

 

[7] The Claimant (CW) testified in support of his case. He adopted his statement on oath which was in terms of the pleadings, and he relied on his admitted documents.  CW informed the court that prior to 2011, he was given a verbal appointment on 6 months’ probation. CW stated that he worked as in the Administrative Department as an intermediary between Trenco and Transmission Company, and that he lived and worked in Abuja. CW informed the Court that the Defendant had no office in Lagos or Abuja when he was there, and he was shown exhibit C1 and asked to read the address on the document. CW told the Court that he applied for a loan of N400,000 and the Managing Directe approved N250,000. CW told the Court he was laid off in 2020 and his account was credited with N82,000. CW told the court that his complaint is that he worked in Abuja but his tax was paid in Lagos; and that he is entitled to be paid pension from 2011-2020 when his employment was terminated. CW stated that he did not know the actual amount of the shortfall he mentioned in his deposition, or what was deducted from his salary. CW stated that he is asking for N100 Million because he believes he has been cheated since 2011.

 

Case of the Defendant

[8] The Defendant’s case on the pleadings is that the Claimant was engaged as an Administrative Assistant by letter dated 17th February 2011 on a probationary basis. The Defendant stated that the position did not require any skill set or qualification; and it was on the condition that he would work from his home because of the very light schedule the work entailed on an initial salary of N38,000.00, which was increased to N45,000.00 in year 2011. The Defendant stated that the Claimant’s job entailed running errands within the Federal Capital Abuja such as delivery of mail from its head office in Lagos State to other organizations and companies when the need arises.

 

[9] The Defendant averred that sometime in 2020, the management reviewed the Claimant’s employment and it was decided that his work was substandard. Subsequently, by a letter dated 10th July 2020, his employment was terminated. The Defendant averred that his tax was remitted to the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service (LIRS) from when the its office was established in Abuja, and the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service (LIRS) issued the tax clearance certificates in the Claimants name. The Defendant averred that prior to 2019, it only had a physical office in Lagos State, and did not have in Abuja at that time and the Claimant was working from his home. The Defendant states that it sought advice from the LIRS and was advised that its tax could be remitted to LIRS on the basis that its only office was located in Lagos; hence the Claimant’s tax was remitted to Lagos till his employment was terminated. By mid-2019, the Defendant states that it set up a branch office in Abuja.

 

[10] The Defendant averred that after a review of the letter of demand written by legal representatives of the Claimant on 20th November 2020, it realized that there was an erroneous shortfall in the Claimant’s pension remittance for the years January 2019 - May 2020 which was subsequently rectified by making additional pension remittances into his pension account on 21st January 2021. The Defendant further stated that the Claimant is not entitled to any pension remittances for 2011 – 2014, as it had less than 5 employees in its employment at that time, specifically, only 3 (three) employees in its employment during the relevant period. That by section 1(2) (b) of the Pension Reform Act LFN 2004, it was only mandated to pay pension within that period if it had 5 or more employees.

 

[11] The Defendant stated that the suit is frivolous, vexatious, and a gold-digging exercise clearly instituted in bad faith, considering that the Defendant granted a loan of the sum of N210,000.00 (two hundred and ten thousand Naira) to the Claimant which he  has refused to repay and which is in excess of the sum the Claimant alleges was not remitted to him as pension.

 

[12] The Defendant’s witness is Engr. Joy Julian Topno (DW), Project Engineer. He adopted his statement on oath which was in terms of the pleadings, and he relied on his admitted documents.  DW informed the Court that the defendant company was awarded a contract by Transmission Company in 2010 and was required to provide tax certificate, NSITF and ITF compliance certificates. DW told the Court that from 2011, the Defendant was not making pension remittances to the appropriate authority as they had no staff at the time. That pension deductions began in 2015, and deductions from the Claimant’s salary for tax clearance in 2016. DW said it was correct that the Defendant deducted pensions from the Claimant salary and did not remit it the authorities. DW told the court that Claimant carried out his duties in Abuja and stayed in Abuja. DW informed the court that the Claimant’s tax was paid to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service instead of Abuja Internal Revenue Service.

 

Final Address

[13] The Defendant’s final address is dated and filed on the 20th of November, 2024. The Claimant’s final address is dated 18th December, 2024 and filed 20th December, 2024. The Defendant filed a reply on 31st January, 2025. Parties adopted their respective addresses and made oral submissions.

[14] Learned counsel to the Defendant submitted as a preliminary issue that the Claimant has conceded all the facts contained in the Defendant’s amended statement of defence  having failed to file a reply in response. He argued that the averments in the said amended statement of defence have not been traversed or controverted by the Claimant, and as such, are deemed admitted by the Claimant. He submitted that it is a common principle of law that where a reply is not filed in response to a statement of defence, the averments contained in the statement of defence are deemed admitted and require no further proof referring to section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011 and citing Amaechi Akudo v Guinness Nigeria Plc (2012) 15 NWLR (Pt. 1322) 150 at 171 Paras B – C, Elewa v Guffanti (Nig) Plc (2017) 2 NWLR (Pt 1549) 233 at 247 Para B-D.

 [15] Learned Counsel submitted one issue for determination in the event that the preliminary issue is not upheld:

 

Whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the reliefs sought in the Amended Statement of Facts?

[16] He referred to the Claimant’s relief 1 and raised 2 sub-issues:

a.      Whether this Honourable Court has the jurisdiction to entertain tax disputes?

b.      Whether the Claimant has the vires to ensure that tax is remitted to the appropriate authority?

 He submitted that jurisdiction is the lifeblood of any judicial proceeding; and where it is found to be lacking, proceedings conducted thereon are a complete nullity citing Akinbobola v Plisson Fisko (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt 167) 270 SC at 284 Para D. He submitted that the Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain/determine relief 1 as it is a dispute on Personal Income Tax which is not within the jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. He referred to Section 59 of the Federal Inland Revenue Services (Establishment Act) 2007, and section 60 of the Personal Income Tax Act 2011 and submitted that the facts place this suit under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Appeal Tribunal. He then urged the Court to strike out relief 1.

[17] Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant lacks the locus standi to seek his 1st relief as presently constituted as it is trite that possessing the requisite locus standi is one of the pre-conditions to be fulfilled before filing the originating processes citing Basinco Motors Ltd vs. Woermann-Line [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1157) 149 at 179 – 180 Paras H – A, APGA v Anyanwu (2014) LPELR-22182 (SC). He referred to section 78 of the Personal Income Tax Act 2011 and submitted that it is only the relevant tax authority, in this case; the Federal Inland Revenue Service that can exclusively commence an action before a Court of competent jurisdiction to recover any income tax due to the Federal Government of Nigeria or any relevant tax authority. He argued that the Claimant did not seek any reliefs on the basis that payments for the periods of 2016 -2020 was done by a same day transaction. That it is settled that the law is not Father Christmas and he cited Benson v Benson (2023) 15 NWLR (Pt 1908) 491  at 505-506 Paras E-C.

[18] Learned Counsel submitted on reliefs 2 and 3 submitted that the Defendant’s established evidence is that it had less than 5 staff at the material time 2011 to 2014. He referred to Section 1 (2) (b) of the Pension Reform Act 2004 and submitted that companies were not mandated to contribute to the pension scheme where they had less than five (5) employees. He submitted that the law is settled that where the words of a statute are clear, the operative words must be given their ordinary and literal meanings, and he cited F. B. N. Plc v. Maiwanda (2013) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1348) 444 at 483 Paras. D – F).

[19] Learned counsel on relief four, submitted that what the law provides in a situation of failure to remit pension is penalties for default which is to be determined by the National Pension Commission, and not exemplary and punitive damages sought by the Claimant. He referred to Section 11 (6) of the Pension Reforms Act 2014.  In arguing relief five and six, he submitted that the law is trite that general damages are only awarded where the Claimant successfully establishes liability against the Defendant citing Access Bank Plc v. Ugwuh (2013) LPELR-20735(CA), He argued that the Claimant has not demonstrated that a wrong has been done to him. He argued that there is no evidence the Claimant incurred N1,000,000.00 in prosecuting this suit. He then submitted that the Claimant having failed to to establish his entitlement to the reliefs sought cannot be entitled to judgment and post judgment interest. He cited Veepee Industries Ltd vs Cocoa Industries Limited (2008) 13 NWLR PT 1105 at 486. He then urged the Court to dismiss the suit.

[20] The Claimant submitted one issue for determination:

 

Whether or not the Claimant has established his entitlement to the reliefs sought in this suit?

 

[21] Learned counsel submitted that the Claimant’s tax remittance was made to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service as opposed to the FCT Internal Revenue Service, which is responsible for tax collection in the Claimant’s place of residence and employment. That the order sought is for the Defendant to do the act he is mandated to do by law which is to obtain the appropriate tax clearance for the Claimant from the FCT Internal Revenue Service. He argued that the issue of jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes on personal income tax does not arise, but a question of a wrong committed by the Defendant and the law is trite that “where there is a wrong, there is a remedy”. He relied on the case of Abdullahi V. Nigerian Army (2020) ALL FWLR (PT. 1034) 319.

[22] Learned Counsel submitted on issues 2 and 3 that the Transmission Company of Nigeria would not have awarded the Defendant the contract to design and Construct the Ganmo Ogbomosho 132KV double Circuit transmission in 2010 if it had less that 5 employees. That this is evident from the documents they were required to produce for registration; the NSITF Compliance Certificate, Industrial Training Fund (ITF) Compliance Certificate. He referred to the provisions of Section 10 (1)  (a), (b) and (c) of the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Act (NSITF Act), and Section 6 of the Industrial Training Fund Act.

[23] Learned Counsel arguing relief 4 submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the exemplary and punitive damages because the act of the defendant is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as there has been flagrant disregard and violation of the of the Pension Reform Act, and he referred to G.K.F Investment (Nig) Ltd vs. INTEL Plc (2009) LPELR-1294 (SC). He submitted that on the evidence adduced, non compliance with the law was done continuously for a long period of time which is an indication that it was a deliberate act on the part of the Defendant.

[24] Learned counsel submitted on reliefs 5, 6, and 7 that a Claimant would be entitled to general damages where liability is successfully established against the Defendant. He submitted that the Defendant is in breach of its statutory duty to remit the pension of the Claimant after deducting same from his monthly salary over a long period of time, and cited Fagge Vs. Tukur (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 387) 876 at 900 paragraphs A and B. He submitted that the Claimant is entitled to post judgement of the sum of 21% interest on the judgement sum having established his case and claim against the Defendant. He relied on the case of Berliet (Nig) Ltd v. Kachalla (1995) 9 NWLR (pt. 420) 478. He then urged the Court to grant all the reliefs prayed.

Reply

[25] Replying on point of law, learned defence counsel submitted that the law is settled that where a party fails to respond to, or counter an issue raised and argued by an adverse party in his brief or written address, such a party is deemed to have conceded not only the point left uncontroverted, but the legal arguments canvassed in support thereof. He cited Alaya v. Isaac (2012) LPELR-9306 (CA). He further submitted that the legal implication and consequence of the Claimant’s failure, omission and or inability to respond to submissions made in the Defendant’s final address, is that the Claimant has conceded the said submissions.

 

[26] Counsel argued that the law is trite that the issue of jurisdiction of a Court to entertain a suit can be raised at any point in time, even on appeal citing Obakim vs. Agbaso (2010) 19 NWLR (Pt. 1226) 172; Ibaku v. Ebini (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt.1222) 286 at 315 paras B-D; Kwenteh v. Kwenteh (2010) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 543 at 567; Katto v. CBN (1991) 9 NWLR (pt.214) 126 at 149 para-D. He submitted that the law is well settled that the address of counsel cannot replace, modify, explain, alter, adjust or rearrange the case of parties citing Andrew vs. INEC (2018) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1625) 507 at 565 Paras. C – D; Dodo vs. Salanke (2006) 9 NWLR (Pt. 986) 447 at 471 Paras. B – C.

 

Decision

[27] I have carefully considered the originating processes, the evidence, the submissions of counsel and authorities relied on in final address. The contract of employment between the parties was properly terminated by the Defendant by payment of one month salary in lieu of notice, and the Claimant’s outstanding indebtedness to the Defendant in the sum of N210,000 (Two Hundred and Ten Thousand  Naira) was written off as seen in Exhibit C4. The Claimant’s first complaint is that his tax remittances only cover the period 2016 to 2020 and it was by a single day transaction, while the period 2012 to 2015 is not provided for; and the tax clearance certificate issued him is from the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service and not Abuja Internal Revenue Service where he resides and works. His second complaint is that his pension was not remitted to his Retirement Savings Account for the period June 2011 to May 2014; and that there was a shortfall in the remittances for the period January 2016 to December 2018 which was by a single day transaction.

[28] The Defendant has raised the issue of jurisdiction with respect to the Claimants first relief seeking “an order directing the Defendant to obtain appropriate the Complainant’s tax clearance from the Abuja Internal Revenue Services”. The issue of jurisdiction is fundamental, the life-blood and bedrock of all trials, see Yau- Yau v APC (2024) 8 NWLR (Pt 1941) 403 SC. It is the authority of the Court to adjudicate over the questions that gave rise to the cause of action; and without jurisdiction, the trial and judgment will amount to an exercise in futility and a nullity, see Okolonwamu v Okolonwamu (2019) 9 NWLR (Pt 1676) 1 at 21, para A; GTB v Toyed (Nig) Ltd (2016) LPELR-4181 (CA), Odom v P.D.P (2015) 6 NWLR (Pt 1456) 527 at 548, paras C-D. A court is only competent to entertain a case where the subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction, see Madukolu v Nkemdilim [1962] 2 SCNLR 341.

[29] The Claimant is seeking an order that his tax certificate be obtained from the Abuja Internal Revenue Services in other words the FCT Internal Revenue Services. The Claimant has exhibited the tax certificates (Exhibit C7) obtained from the Lagos State Internal Revenue Services. The jurisdiction of this Court is subject matter based as set out in Section 254C (1), (2), (3), (4), and (5). This is clearly a tax dispute that comes under the jurisdiction of the Tax Appeal Tribunal that entertains all disputes arising from the operation of the Personal Income Tax Act 2011, now captured under the Nigeria Tax Act (NTA) 2025. Consequently, this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the tax issue. Relief 1 is hereby struck off for want of jurisdiction.

[30] On the preliminary issue raised by learned defence counsel, that the Claimant has conceded all the facts contained in the Defendant’s amended statement of defence  having failed to file a reply in response, there is no general proposition of law that failure to file a reply to rebut an averment in a statement of defence is tantamount to an admission. However, where a defendant by his pleadings sets out a case that cannot be met by mere denial and which has not been taken care of by the averments in the statement of claim, it is a matter of utmost prudence, if not necessity to file a reply to the statement of defence, see Igwenagu v Min ,FCT (2025) 7NWLR (Pt 1988) 145 at 185 – 186 Paras G-A, 186 Para D-F.

[31] It is the law that whoever desires the court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove those facts exist, section 131 (1) & (2) of the Evidence Act 2011, see Calabar Co-operative Ltd v Ekpo [2008] 1-2 SC 229 at 255. The Claimant is seeking for pension remittance for the period June 2011 to May 2014. The Defendant asserts that the Claimant is not entitled to pension remittance for that period as it had less than five employees and therefore exempted from remitting pension under the Pension Reform Act 2004. The evidence of DW in paragraphs 15 and 16 of his deposition, and Exhibit D2 which shows that the Defendant had three employees in not controverted. The Claimant did not join issues in the pleadings on this material fact, neither was DW cross-examined on it. The evidence of DW is therefore unchallenged and the Court must accept it, see Ogbe v Asade [2011] 18 NWLR (Pt 1172) 106 at 131 SC, Omoregbe v Lawani [1980] 3-4 SC 108, Elizabeth Mabamije v Hans Wolfgang Otto [2016] LPELR-26058 (SC).

[32] By section 1 (2)(b) of the Pension Reform Act 2004, the contributory pension scheme shall apply to all employees in the private sector who are in employment in an organization in which there are five or more employees. The Defendant had only three employees at the material time and was not required by the Pension Reform Act to pay the Claimant pension at that material time June 2011 to May 2014; and I so hold. The Defendant by the provisions of the law was to begin to make pension remittances as soon as it had 5 or more employees. There is no evidence regarding the date the Defendant had 5 or more employees.

[33] Section 4 (1) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 (PRA) provides that the rate of contribution for any employee is a minimum of 10% by the employer, and a minimum of 8% by the employee. The Defendant admitted that there was an erroneous shortfall in the Claimant’s pension remittance for the years January 2019 - May 2020 which was subsequently rectified by making additional pension remittances into his pension account on 21st January 2021. DW in cross examination informed the court that pension deductions began in year 2015, and admitted that the Defendant deducted pension from the Claimant’s salary but failed to remit it.

[34] Section 11 (3), (4), (6), (7) of the Pension Reform Act 2014 provides:

             (3) The Employer shall –

(a)   deduct at source, the monthly contribution of the employee; and

(b)  not later than 7 working days from the day the employee is paid his salary, remit an amount comprising the employee's contribution under paragraph (a) of this subsection and the employer’s contribution to the Pension Fund Custodian specified by the Pension Fund Administrator of the employee.

 

(4) Upon receipt of the contributions remitted under subsection (3) (b) of this section, the Pension Fund Custodian shall notify the Pension Fund Administrator who shall cause to be credited the retirement savings account of the employee for whom the employer had made the payment.

 

(6) An employer who fails to deduct or remit the contributions within the time stipulated in subsection (3) (b) of this section shall, in addition to making the remittance already due, be liable to a penalty to be stipulated by the Commission.

(7) The penalty referred to in sub-section (6) of this section shall not be less than two per cent of the total contribution that remains unpaid for each month or part of each month the default continues and the amount of the penalty shall be recoverable as a debt owed to the employees retirement savings account as the case may be.

[35] It is the statutory duty of the Defendant to contribute its share and remit both pension contributions not later than 7 working days from the day the Claimant is paid his salary. I find that the Defendant did not comply with this provision as at when due. Rather, by a single transaction dated 21st May 2019 it made remittances for the period January 2016 to December 2018 (Exhibit C11), and by another single transaction on 21st January 2021 made remittances for the period January 2019 to May 2020 (Exhibit C8). The Defendant’s failure to remit the pension contributions within 7 days as prescribed by law is unlawful. The Pension Reform Act in section 11(6) prescribes a penalty to be stipulated by the Commission for the employer’s failure to deduct or remit the employees  pension. In this regard, the Claimant is at liberty to make a report to the National Pension Commission as the amount of the penalty is recoverable as a debt owed to his retirement savings account as provided in section 11(7) of the Act. In light of the penalty already prescribed by the Act, the Claimant is not entitled to an award of exemplary or punitive damages claimed in relief 4.

[36] The Claimant has made a claim for general damages for financial loss of interest accruable had his pension been remitted as at when due. An award of general damages is awarded to remedy a wrong where the Claimant successfully establishes liability against the Defendant, see Access Bank Plc v Ugwuh (2013) LPELR-20735 (CA), Fagge v Tukur (2007) All FWLR (Pt 387) 876 at 900 Para A-B. By exhibits C8 and C11, it is established that the remittance of the Claimant’s pension was outside the 7 days prescribed by law. I find that there were shortfalls in the remittances and furthermore, remittances for the period January 2016 to May 2020 was made by single day transactions on 21st May 2019, and 21st January 2021 respectively. It is without doubt that the Claimant has lost the accrued interest he would have earned in his Retirement Savings Account for the period of 5 years if the remittances had been timeously made in accordance with the provisions of the law.

[37] The Claimant is therefore entitled to an award of general damages pursuant to the provisions of section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. The Claimant’s   gross monthly salary as seen in Exhibit C3 is N81,000.00 (Eighty One Thousand Naira). I award the sum of N1,944,000.00 (One Million, Nine Hundred and Forty Four Thousand Naira) being the equivalent of 24 months gross salary as general damages. Costs in the sum of N500,000.00 awarded the Claimant. The sums are to be paid within 30 days. Thereafter, any sum outstanding will attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until liquidated.

Judgment is entered accordingly.

           

                                    ____________________________

                                    Hon Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae