IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE, A.N UBAKA DATED 21st MAY 2026 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/413/2019 BETWEEN NNAMANI OKECHUKWU CHARLES CLAIMANT AND BRITENIAN HOTEL AND SUITES LTD DEFENDANT REPRESENTATION S.K. Oke for the Claimant V. N Ajagbo with B. N Nwofe for the Defendant JUDGMENT The claimant’s claim as contained in paragraph 27 of his statement of claim is for: 1. A Declaration that failure to issue the Claimant a letter of appointment after working for the Defendant for over 2 years is wrongful. 2. A Declaration that failure of the Defendant to pay the Claimant's salaries while in hospital as a result of the injuries he sustained while at work is wrongful and amount to unfair labour practice. 3. An Order that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of N10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) as compensation for injury sustained in the course of his duty. 4. An Order that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of N1,620,000 (One Million, Six Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only) being arrears of his outstanding salary. 5. General Damages in the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) for the pain, embarrassment and financial hardship suffered by the Claimant. 6. Costs of the action assessed at N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira). Accompanying the complaint are statement of facts, written statement on oath, list of witnesses, documents to be relied upon on trial dated and filed 19th August, 2019. In reaction, the defendant only entered appearance but did not file its statement of defence and decided to rest its case on the claimant as submitted by the defendant’s counsel on 24th June, 2025 and the honourable court thereby foreclosed the defendant from opening its defence on 24th June, 2025. The summary of the claimant’s case as pleaded in the statement of facts is that the defendant employed him sometime in November/December as security personnel but was not given a letter of employment and he had on many occasions demanded that he be given a letter of employment but the Managing Director, Mr. Ukandu said he would attend to it and never gave him a letter of employment; that as a security officer, his job was to monitor entry and exit of persons and to open and duly close the gates during such entry and exit of persons at the gate of the Defendant hotel; that his monthly salary is the sum of N45,000 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira Only) and that he normally receives his salary in cash from the manager every month. That he worked diligently for the Defendant until the date of the accident. That on the 7th of August, 2016, at about 12.00am, one Mr. Emmanuel Chukwu a customer to his employer drove into the Hotel and he duly opened the gate for him and the customer had some drinks with friends but when the customer was reversing his car to drive out, and in the process of opening the gate for the customer, he rammed him against the gate with his vehicle and he virtually passed out and woke up to find himself at Faith City hospital which is next door to the Defendant. That he was given First Aid at Faith City hospital before he was referred to a specialist at the National Orthopedic Hospital Igbobi Lagos for further treatment of his left leg which was severely damaged, as a result of the accident; that the Defendant refused to pay for the initial treatment at Faith City Hospital and that it was the customer that eventually sourced for money to pay; that he lost a lot of blood before he got to the orthopedic hospital and when the specialist examined the injury on his left leg, he informed him that he will need to undergo a corrective surgery on the leg immediately because of the extent of the injury and because he did not receive the required type of treatment on time; that the hospital informed him that it would cost the sum of N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) to carry out surgery on his leg and that the Hospital refused to carry out the surgery on the instructions of the Defendant, on the ground that the Defendant did not pay nor undertook to pay the cost of the surgery. That it was the failure and the delay caused by the lack of commitment from the defendant that led to the deadness of his leg which was subsequently amputated during the surgery; that he spent further 3 months at the hospital and was mobilized with crutches upon his discharge from the hospital. That after the accident, the Defendant informed the police and the manager named Mr. Rowland Ukandu, made a statement at the Ajao Estate police Station regarding the accident; that he has suffered untold pain and hardship both physically and emotionally because of the amputation; that since the accident and after the amputation, he has not been able to find another paid employment because of the difficulty in moving around and that it has become increasingly difficult for him to feed himself and cater for his family; that all through the period he was rushed to Faith City Hospital, the period of operation to when his leg was amputated at Igbobi, the defendant did not pay his salaries neither was he given any form of monetary or financial assistance nor contribute to the cost of my treatment. That it is an unfair labour practice for the Defendant to stop paying his salary simply because he sustained injury and was receiving treatment in a hospital. Moreso when the Defendant has not terminated his employment in any way; that he was not compensated for the loss of his leg while in the course of his official duty; that he has made several efforts to plead with the Defendant to pay his salaries and compensate him but the Defendant was not forthcoming and he had to approach the Lagos State Office of The Citizens' Mediation Centre, Ministry of Justice at No. 7, L.J. Dosunmu Street, Opposite Beehive School, Alausa, Ikeja, Lagos to seek mediation; that the Citizens Mediation Centre invited the Defendant for mediation on two separate occasions, with a view to exploring amicable settlement but the Defendant refused to attend and the Office of the Public Defender consequently decided to file the matter before this honourable court as a last resort. Under cross examination by the defendant’s counsel, CW stated that he was employed by the defendant in 2014 and not Geaco Security Ltd; that he was not a contract staff of the defendant; that the customer of the defendant paid N100, 000 at Faith Clinic Hospital; that the customer only paid for his feeding at Igbobi while his friend paid his medical bill; that he was on the payroll of the defendant. There was no re-examination by the claimant’s counsel. The claimant thereafter closed his case. The parties were directed to file their final written addresses. The claimant’s final written address is dated and filed 14th October, 2025 while the defendant’s final written address is dated and filed 7th November, 2025. Learned counsel on behalf of the claimant framed a sole issue for the court’s determination viz: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. It is the claimant’s counsel submission on the sole issue is that the defendant’s failure to call evidence in defence of a claim against it does not mean automatic victory for the Claimant because the Claimant must succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the fact that there is no defence before the Court. He cited the case of Ogunyade vs. Oshunkeye 2007 15 NWLR (pt. 1057 @218). Continuing; counsel submitted that Section 7(1) of the Labour Act specifically mandates an employer to furnish the employee with a written statement containing the items stated thereunder within 3 months of employment; that these are the minimum items a letter of employment would contain; that in the instant case, no letter of employment was given to the Claimant except the uncontroverted testimony of the Claimant establishing that the Claimant worked for the Defendant from December 2014 until the date of the accident; that the relationship between the parties are evidence in the certified true copies (CTC) of the statements offered by the General Manager with the Defendant at the Ajao Estate Police Station where a report of the accident was made- Exhibit OC-3. He urged the honourable court to hold that the Defendant was in breach of the provisions of Section 7(1) of the Labour Act in not issuing the Claimant a letter of employment. On the 2nd claim of the claimant; counsel submitted that the Defendant did not insure the Claimant under the Employee Compensation Act as there is a duty on the Defendant to continue to pay the Claimant's salaries for a reasonable length of time or for a period of 42 months but the Defendant neglected to cater or make arrangements for the welfare of the Claimant as he was not paid salary, no form of care nor did the defendant notify the Claimant that his services would no longer be needed; that it would amount to an unfair labour practice for the Defendant not to pay the medical bills of its employee who sustained severe injury while working for it; that It would also amount to an unfair labour practice for the Defendant to impliedly sack the Claimant while the Claimant was receiving treatment and undergoing surgery for the injury sustained in the course of employment; that Article 6 of the ILO Termination of Employment Convention (lLO/C/158) makes it clear that temporary absence from work because of illness or injury shall not constitute valid reason for termination. He referred the honourable court to Convention No. 158 and Recommendation of No. 166 concerning termination of employment". (httpsllwww.ilo.org/wcms_100768) and urged the honourable court to hold that failure of the Defendant to pay the Claimant's salaries while in the hospital as a result of the injuries he sustained while at work is wrongful and amount to unfair labour practice. On the 3rd claim of the claimant; counsel submitted that the Claimant is currently an amputee who has lost his left leg from above the knee to his foot via exhibit OC 1 and Exhibit OC 5; that the accident that caused a permanent disability for the Claimant occurred in the course of employment and that it will require a prosthetic leg and expert treatment to aid his mobility; that had it being the Defendant had insurance cover for the claimant or enrolled under the Employee Compensation Scheme, the Insurance company or NSITF would have provided adequate treatment as well as compensation to the Claimant for the permanent disability but this is not the case and that the honourable court has power under the law to award compensation/damage in deserving cases. He referred the honourable court to Section 14 of the National Industrial court Act and cited the case of Omang vs. NSA (2020) LPELR - 50225 (CA) @ Pg. 25. Continuing, counsel submitted that during cross-examination, the Defence counsel tendered a letter purportedly written by the Defendant to the Citizens' Mediation Centre. The document which was never frontloaded, as the Defendant never filed a Defence; that this violates the National Industrial Court Rules and the principle of fair hearing because the Claimant was not put on notice and does not have a good knowledge of the content of the letter; that the document was also not one authored by the Claimant nor addressed to him, so he could not verify the authenticity of the letter; that by virtue of Section 37 of the Evidence Act, 2011, this document amounts to a written document made otherwise than by the witness (the Claimant in this case), the document cannot be tendered through him as such amounts hearsay evidence. He urged the honourable court to mark the letter "rejected" and expunged from its records. On the 4th claim of the claimant; counsel submitted that while the claimant concedes that the statements - Exhibit OC 3 emanates from police custody, the honourable court by virtue of Section 12(2}(b} of the NIC Act is empowered to depart from the strict rules of evidence where justice so demands. He urged the honourable court to admit and consider the relevant facts contained therein for the purpose of establishing the relationship between the Claimant and Defendant. On the 5th and 6th claims of the claimant; counsel submitted that in this instant case, the Claimant suffered an accident within the Defendant's premises and in the course of duty; that the Defendant abandoned him, refused to pay his salaries, failed to provide adequate medical assistance which led to the amputation of the Claimant's left leg despite many requests and pleas for assistance. That all that would have ameliorated the pain, embarrassment and financial hardship of the Claimant to cushion the effect of the non¬payment was withheld by the Defendant; that for the acts of the Defendant, an award of damages would be an adequate compensation and also entitled to the cost of action as the Claimant would not have incurred the expenses of coming to court but for the action of the Defendant and efforts by the Claimant to explore amicable resolution on this dispute were not honoured, thus it failed. In his address the defendant counsel formulated four (4) issues for the court’s determination viz: 1. Whether the Claimant in the circumstance of this case has successfully led evidence to show that he is the employee of the Defendant subject matter of this suit being a contract staff having been duly employed by a security company known and called Gaeco Security Company Limited. AND/OR 2. Whether the Defendant has established in any material form by way of tendering before the Honourable Court evidence of employment i.e letter of employment from the Defendant. 3. Whether the Claimant proved his case before the Honourable Court to be entitled to the reliefs claim in this suit. AND/OR 4. Whether the statement made to the Police at Ajao Police Station, when the accident happened wherein, he sustained an injury amounts to Letter of Employment from the Defendant. The defendant’s counsel submerged the above issues and submitted together that it is settled law that for the claimant to be entitled to his reliefs claimed in this suit, the claimant must provide that he is or was an employee to the defendant by tendering letter of employment from his employer; that he is an employee of the defendant, the terms and conditions of his employment, the way and manner and by whom he can be removed, the way and manner the terms and conditions of his employment was breached by his employer; that throughout the evidence of the claimant, there was nothing to show like letter of employment that the defendant employed him, let alone owing him rather the claimant is nothing but a contract staff wherein the Security company known and called GAECO Company Nigeria Limited employed him and sent him to the defendant and above all, the person known and called Emmanuel Chukwu, who hit the defendant with his Jeep took over the medical bills at Igbobi Orthopedic Hospital wherein in addition bought clutches for him. He cited the case of Longe v. F.B.N. Plc (2010) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1188) 1 SC. Continuing, counsel submitted that that for the claimant to be entitled under the workmen's compensation Act, cap 470, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, he must establish with credible evidence that the defendant was his employer at the time of the incident. He cited the case of Amike v. SPDC Ltd (2011) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1246) 227CA. I have heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed in this matter. The issue for determination which is the sole issue as framed by the claimant is Whether the claimant is entitled to his reliefs. Before I go into the main issue it is pertinent to look at the preliminary point raised by the claimant that the defendant did not file any defense, thus rested its case on that of the claimant. The counsel continued that the fact that the defendant did not call evidence of the claim against him, does not mean automatic victory because the claimant must succeed on the strength of his case and not rely that there is no evidence before the court citing Ogunyade v Osunkeye (supra). Meanwhile in advancing this position, the claimant’s counsel now submit that the effect of a party’s failure to call evidence in defence in a claim against the defendant is presumed to have admitted the case against it by the other party and the court is to accept the unchallenged and uncontroverted case placed before it by the claimant. Having stated the position of the law, what is the essence of contradicting the earlier position? If the law is that the claimant is not entitled to automatic judgment, what is the other presumption that the court is to accept the unchallenged and uncontroverted case. The duty to prove the reliefs claimed lie solely on the claimant. The law is trite that in civil cases, the burden of proof lies on the claimant to prove his claim, this means the claimant must prove his case in order to succeed. It is also settled that where the claimant leads evidence in support of his claim but the defendant failed to lead evidence in rebuttal, the burden of proof on the claimant is discharged on minimal evidence. See Martins v Solomon (2022) LPELR -57457 (CA) Court of Appeal stated the nature of the burden of proof on the claimant where the defendant offers no evidence as follows: It follows therefore, in the determination of whether a claimant has proved his case on a balance of probability or preponderance of evidence, the burden of proof on a claimant whose case is unchallenged is in law said to be minimal. This is a very well-known principle on which there are so many decided cases, some being Akinwunmi v Idowu (1969)1 ALL NLR 319 at 321. Omoregbe v Lawani (1980) 3 -4 S.C 108, Kosile v Folarin (1989) 4 S.C (pt 150, (1989) 3 NWLR (pt 107) 1 at 12. The law still remains that the claimant in this case has a duty to prove entitlement to his claims. As required by law the claimant has placed before the court a Medical Report (exhibit OC1), Appeal for Legal Assistance (exhibit CO2), Police Report (exhibit OC 3), Pictures of the claimant showing the Amputated leg (exhibit CO5), Defense counsel’s letter (exhibit JO5). To resolve this issue, the court will first determine relief 1 which is on the failure of the defendant to issue letter of employment after two years as wrongful. Both parties agree the claimant was hit in the premises of the defendant but hold divergent views on who is the employer of the claimant. The claimant’s pleadings on this is in paragraph 4 of the statement of facts and he averred That the Defendant employed him early in the month of December 2014, but was not given a letter of employment. The Claimant demanded for a letter of employment but the Defendant kept saying it would be attended to. The defendant did not file statement of defence but in its final written address submit that for the claimant to be entitled to his reliefs claimed in this suit, the claimant must provide that he is or was an employee of the defendant by tendering Letter of employment from his employer. He referred to Section 7 of the Labour Act. Section 91 of the Labour Act cap LFN 2004 on ‘worker’ which means 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. Section 7 (1) (a) to (h) of the Labour Act CAP LFN 2004 provides as follows: 7(1) Not later than three months after the beginning of a worker’s period of employment with an employer, the employer shall give to the worker a written statement specifying – a. The name of the employer or group of employers, and where appropriate, of the undertaking by which the worker is employed. b. The name and address of the worker and the place and date of his engagement. c. The nature of the employment. d. The contract is for a fixed term, the date when the contract expires. e. The appropriate period of notice to be given by the party wishing to terminate the contract, due regard being had to section 11 of this act. f. The rates of wages and method of calculation thereof and the manner and periodicity of payment of wages. g. Any terms and conditions relating to i. the hours of work ii. holidays and holiday pay or iii. incapacity for work due to sickness or injury, including any provisions for sick pay and h. Any special conditions of the contract The above provisions apply to the claimant who is a worker pursuant to the definition in Section 91 of the Labour Act. These rights to written particular as provided by the law is mandatory. The claimant worked for the defendant from December 2014 August to 2016 which is about twenty (20) months without a letter of employment and did not complain about the non-issuance of such. The forgoing will ideally work against the claimant who did not complain during the period. The defendant dispute that the claimant is its worker, having disputed the fact that the claimant is not its employee, what has the claimant placed before the court? The claimant’s response is that he was employed by the defendant, the defendant gave a different scenario on how the claimant is nothing but a contract staff wherein the security company known and called GAECO company Nigeria Limited employed and sent him to the defendant. The letter of appointment of an employee is the bedrock of his contract of employment. All the terms and conditions of the contract of employment must be founded within the letter of employment and, as it often happens, any document that it may have incorporated. See Mobil Producing Nig Unltd & Anor v Udo Tom Udo (2008) LPELR -8440 (CA) The court of appeal held that The general rule is that contract of employment may be in any form and not necessarily in writing and that employees not given letters of employment were never left unprotected. again, that the corroborative evidence of PW2 that the respondent had worked for a long time with the appellant before he was sent to the police training school suffice. This cannot be unfair labor practice – proof of three months to give letter of employment. He did not complain. The claimant did not complain for 20 months which is the period from December 2014 – August 7th 2016. According to the Black Laws Dictionary, an employee is Any person in service of another under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how the work is to be done. In other words, contract of employment can be oral. In Labour law, the burden of proof lies with the party who asserts the existence of the employment relationship. The employee has to prove that the relationship existed where the claimant is claiming for unpaid salary like in the instant case or in a case of wrongful termination. The defendant in paragraph 3.2 of its final address referred to the claimant as a contract staff wherein the company called Gaeco company Nigeria limited employed him and sent him to the defendant. Having referred to the claimant as a contract staff sent to the defendant, it means this is a triangular employment. See Luck Guard Limited v Mr. Felix Adariaku & Ors (2022) LPELR -59331 (CA). A triangular employment relationship is a situation where the employer arranges for an employee’s placement or assignment with a party. The claimant has not told the court that he was sent from a security company, rather he has referred consistently to the defendant as his employer and that he was not issued with a letter of employment. While the initial burden is on the claimant, the onus is not entirely static as where the employee provides prima facie evidence like i.d card, then the burden shifts to the employer to rebut the claim. I hold that the onus of proving employment is on the employee and not on the employer. In this case, the claimant has nothing to show that he complained about not being issued with a letter of employment after working for twenty months with the defendant. The 1st relief fails and is dismissed. The second relief is for declaration that failure to pay the claimant’s salaries while in the hospital as a result of the injuries is wrongful. The claimant averred that his monthly salary is N45,000. In paragraph 7 of the statement of facts he averred The Claimant avers that his monthly salary is the sum of N45,000.00 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira, Only) and that he normally receives his salary as cash from the Defendant. The use of the word ‘’ normally ‘’ means not always but has not told the court the other ways he received his salary. The case of the claimant is that one Mr. Emmanuel Chukwu a customer of the defendant was reversing his car and rammed the claimant against the gate. He was rushed to the hospital and the leg was eventually amputated. The claimant’s contention is that he was not paid during this period. The state of the law is that in a contract of employment, the terms of such contract is the bedrock of the claimant’s case. The claimant is bound by his pleadings and if it contains no averment as to the contract of service, he cannot complain that he was wrongfully terminated or ask for entitlement outside of it, or that which he had failed to plead. See Amodu v Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt 150) 356 at 367, The National Investment Properties Co Ltd v The Thompson Organization Ltd & Ors (1969) NMLR 99. It is also the case that in a dispute over non-payment of salary, the method by which the previous salary was paid must be placed before court as it is only from this that the court can properly determine the terms. The foregoing will ideally work against the claimant and on the basis of the principle of law that, he who asserts must prove. In paragraph 5.5.1 of the claimant’s final written address, the counsel submit that the claimant received his monthly salary for the previous month in cash every first week of the new month and after the accident on 7th August 2016, the defendant caused his salaries to cease with effect from July 2016. The further submission of the claimant is that such act amounts to unfair labor practice, one for not paying the medical bills being its employee and secondly for impliedly sacking the claimant while the claimant was receiving treatment and undergoing surgery. On non-payment of his salary, the claimant has to show other than by his evidence as his evidence is not corroborated. Corroboration means existing evidence coming from another independent testimony where a piece of evidence requires corroboration. The claimant’s claim does not qualify as a claim in negligence as espoused in the claimant’s counsel paragraph 5.52 of the Final Written Address that the defendant did not insure the claimant under the employee compensation Act. The next legal question that must be resolved is whether the claimant’s claim qualify as claim in negligence. his case is not negligence having not registered with the appropriate body. As argued by the defendant, for the claimant to be entitled under the Workmen’s Compensation Act Cap 470 LFN the claimant must establish with credible evidence that the defendant was his employer at the time of the accident relying on Amike v SPDC (supra). While the claimant’s submission is that the defendant has a duty to continue to pay the salary of the worker while he is injured for a reasonable period without referring to what he is claiming. I hold that the claimant’s main relief is for payment of his outstanding salary. The next question is can the claimant use oral evidence to claim salary without corroborative evidence. Has the claimant established the existence of an oral contract between them as to entitle the claimant to salary while in the hospital. See Mr. Suraju Rufai v Bureau of Public Enterprises & 7ors unreported suit No NICN/ LA/18/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 4th June 2018- In Labour relations, the burden is on the claimant who claims monetary sums to prove not only the entitlement to the sums but how he /she came by the quantum of the sums and proof of entitlement is often by reference to an instrument or document that grants it. Mr. Mohammed Dungus & Ors v ENL Consortium Ltd (2015) 60 NLLR (Pt 208). There is nothing from the records to show the implied terms of the contract to move the court to enforceability. See also Joseph Akinola & Ors v Larfage Cement Wapco (2015) LPELR -24630. Where the court specifically cautions against the reliance on an oral contract as proof of such entitlements, he has to show other than by his evidence as there is no corroboration. Based on this authority and the fact that there is no corroborative evidence save for his oral evidence that he is being owed salary, the court cannot grant same. the relief fails and is dismissed. On the claim for damages of N5, 000, 000 and N10, 000, 000 for injury suffered, since the main reliefs failed, reliefs 5 and 6 automatically fail and are dismissed. On the whole, the claimant’s case fails in its entirety and is dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE A.N. UBAKA JUDGE