IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA.

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: JULY 22, 2026                             

SUIT NO: NICN/AWK/54/2025

 

BETWEEN   

Nigeria Social Insurance Trust 

Fund Management Board                                             -                           Claimant 

 

AND

Marist Comprehensive College Nteje Ltd                    -                           Defendant

 

REPRESENTATION

Adaeze Mbakwe, Esq., with Ononkwo Emeka, Esq., for the Claimant.

No legal representation for the Defendant.

 

 JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

  1. The Claimant filed an originating summons dated 26th September 2025. The originating summons is supported by an affidavit of 18 paragraphs deposed to by Chukwuma Robert Obi an Officer 1 in the claimant’s company.

 

  1. The claimant prays for the following reliefs;
    1. A declaration that the defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 and by so being, obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2024 up to date and thereafter into the Employees Compensation Fund Managed by the claimant.
    2. A declaration that the defendant being an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 is obligated to cause to be furnished to the claimant complete and accurate particulars of the defendant’s total monthly payroll from July, 2024 up to date and thereafter.
    3. A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the cost of any action to recover the unpaid assessment from the defendant.
    4. A declaration that given the defendant’s wilful (sic) refusal to provide the claimant with her complete and accurate payroll for assessment, the claimant is entitled to assess the defendant of 1.0 percent of the defendant’s total monthly payroll based on estimates, the outcome of which the defendant is bound to pay.
    5. An order compelling the defendant to provide the claimant with estimates of the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll from July 2024 up to date and thereafter, and signed copies of reports of the employer’s payrolls for each year from July 2024 up to date and thereafter.
    6. An order directing the defendant to pay into Employees’ Compensation Fund the sum One Hundred and Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (?104,500,000.00) only, as an outstanding sum established through a statutory estimation of the defendant’s salaries and wages record for the period July 2024 to February 2025.
    7. An order directing the defendant to pay into the Employee s’ compensation Fund the sum of Forty-One Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira (?41,800,000.00) only, being an amount equal to 40% of the defendant’s outstanding liability established through estimation, as penalty for default in failing to cause to be furnished to the Fund estimates of the probable amount of the Employer’s payrolls and signed copies of the total monthly payroll for each year from July 2024 up to date and thereafter, and for failure to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of total monthly payroll for the period under review into the Employee’s Compensation Fund managed by the claimant.
    8. An order directing the defendant to pay into the Employees’ Compensation Fund the sum of Ten Million, Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira (?10,450,000.00) only, being an amount equal to 10% of the defendant’s outstanding liability established through estimation from July 2024 to February 2025 as default fee for wilful (sic) refusal to pay her outstanding debt within the stipulated time frame.
    9. An order directing the defendant to pay into the Employees Compensation Fund the sum of Two Million Naira (?2,000,000.00) only in general damages. 
    10. An order directing the sealing up of the defendant’s business premises until all unpaid contributions have been remitted.
    11. And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

  1. The defendant did not file any defence to the claimant originating summons.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant is seeking this Honourable Court’s direction relating to some sections of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 as contained in the originating summons and the determination by this Honourable Court of the questions as contained in the originating summons. that the 18 paragraphs affidavit filed by the claimant vehemently contends that the defendant, an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ compensation Act, 2010, has wilfully (sic) neglected to cause to be furnished to the claimant an estimate of the probable amount of the payroll of the defendant from February 2022 up to date, and signed copies of report its in payrolls for each year from February 2022 in accordance with the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, and wilfully (sic) neglected to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of its total monthly payroll from February 2022 up to date into Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the claimant. the claimant is relying on all the paragraphs of the affidavit particularly paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12, and 16.

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT

  1. The claimant formulated six issues for determination thus:
    1. Whether by the construction of the extant provisions of sections 2(1), 73; 33(1); 39 (1) (a) (b) (i) (ii) (iii) (2) (3) and (4); 40 (1) (a) (b) (2) and (5) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, the defendant is an employer and by so being, obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of its total monthly payroll from February 2022, having been operational by the time when the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 was signed into law, up to date into Employees’ Compensation Fund managed by the claimant, and cause to be furnished to the claimant an estimate of the probable amount of the defendant’s payrolls from July 2024 up to date, and signed copies of the defendant’s payrolls for each year from July 2024 up to date?
    2. Whether by the construction of the extant provisions of sections 36(2) and 39(2), the claimant is authorized to make an estimate of the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll, assess and levy on that estimate and the defendant is bound by it?
    3. Whether the defendant is liable to pay as a penalty for the default, a percentage of the assessment prescribed by regulations or determine by the Board.
    4. Whether the Board may assess a penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent of the unpaid assessment or the value of the security required, the payment of which may be enforced in the same manner as the payment of an assessment?
    5. Whether by the construction of the extant provisions of section 36(1) and (2) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 the claimant is entitled to cost and has a cause of action against the defendant for the unpaid 1.0 percent minimum monthly contribution of the defendant’s total monthly payroll and/or the amount assessed against the defendant through estimation.
    6. Whether having regard to the provisions of sections 53(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) and (7); and 54 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and (g) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 the claimant or any of its officers or person authorized thereby is entitled to, at any time or all reasonable hours, entry into the workplace of the defendant and have access to inspect and examine defendant’s payroll and other necessary documents with a view to ascertaining a proper assessment of contribution payable by the defendant. 

 

  1. For issue (1), the claimant referred to Section 2(1), 32(1), (a), (b) and (c), 33(1), 34(1), (2), (a), (b), and (3), 36(1) and (2), 39(1), (a) (b), (i) (ii) (iii) (2) (3) and (4); 40 (1) (a) and (b) (2) and (5), 46; 47(a) & (b); 48(1) (a) & (b); 53(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7), and 54 (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) and thus are reproduced below:

2 (1) Subject to the provisions of Sections 3 and 70 of this Act, this Act shall apply to all employers and employee in the public and private sectors in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

32 (1) The Board shall –

(a) carryout assessment of the amounts to be paid into the fund by employers under the Act. 

(b) undertake regular actuarial valuation of industries, sectors and workplaces and determine the rates of contributions by employers into the fund by such industry, sector or workplace.

(c) receive and credit into its account, all money payable into the fund under this Act.

33(1) Every employer shall, within the first 2 years of the commencement of this Act, make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of the total monthly payroll into the fund.   

34(1) The Board shall assess employers for such sums in such manner, form and procedure as the Board may, from time to time determine for the due administration of this Act. 

            (2) Assessments shall in the first instance, be based upon estimates:         

     (a) of the employer’s payroll for the year provided under Section 41 of this Act; or

     (b) as determined by the Board under Sections 43 of this Act.           

            (3) The Board may, by order, establish a minimum assessment:

36(1) The Board shall have a cause of action for any unpaid assessment and shall be entitled to the cost of any action to recover the unpaid assessment.

       (2) If, for any reason, an employer liable to assessment is not assessed by the Board, the employer shall be liable for the amount for which the employer should have been assessed, or as much as the Board considers reasonable, and payment of that amount may be enforced as if the employer had been assessed for that amount.

 39(1) “Every Employ shall

     (a) keep at all times at same place in Nigeria, the location and address of which the employer has given notice to the Board, complete and accurate particulars of the employer’s payroll”.                                   

            (b) cause to be furnished to the Board:                                                

     (i)  when the employer becomes an employer within the scope of this Act, and                   

     (ii) at other times as required by any regulation made by the Board of general application or any decision of the Board limited to a specific employer, an estimate of the probable amount of the payroll of each of the employer’s industries within the scope of this Act, together with any further information required by the Board; and                               

     (iii) provide signed copies of the employer’s payrolls, not later than the 31st December in each year or at such other times and in the manner required by the Board”. 

            (2)  Where the employer fails to comply with sub-section (1) of this section, the employer is liable to pay as a penalty for the default, a percentage of the assessment prescribed by regulations or determined by the Board, and the Board may make its own estimate of the payrolls assess and levy on that estimate, and the employer is bound by it.

      (3) In computing the amount of the payroll for the purpose of assessment regard shall be had only to that portion of the payroll that represents workers and employment within the scope of this Act.

      (4) If an employer does not comply with sub-section (1) of this section or if a statement made in pursuance of its requirements is not time and accurate, the employer for every failure to comply and for every such statement shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or fine of not less than ?100,000 or to both imprisonment and fine for an individual or a fine of not less than ?1,000,000 for a body corporate and in addition, each director, manager or officer of the body corporate shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year or a fine of ?100,000 or to both such imprisonment and fine. 

 40(1) Every employer shall, not later than the last day of February in each year or at such other time as may be required by the Board, provide in a manner to be determined by the Board, a statement.

     (a) of the total amount of all earnings paid to its employees on the preceding year.

     (b) estimating the earnings that will be paid to its employees in the current year or any part of it as directed by the Board.

      (2) If the statement is found to be incorrect, the Board shall reassess the employer for each year that the statement was incorrectly made and may charge the employer interest, at a rate determined by the decision of the Board, on any assessment that was not paid.

     (5) Unless satisfactory evidence of an employer’s actual payroll for any period is provided to the Board, the payroll estimated by the Board under this Section or under Section 40 (1) shall be deemed to be the actual payroll of the employer.

 46. if an assessment is not paid when required by the Board, or security is not provided when required, the Board may assess a penalty in an amount equal to 10 percent of the unpaid assessment or the value of the security required, the payment of which may be enforced in the same manner as the payment of an assessment.

47. if an employer-

           a) defaults in providing the security required by the Board;

           b) defaults in the payment of any amount due to the fund; or

           c) contravenes any decisions of the Board, the employer commits an offence under this Act.

48. (1) where-

           a) an employer fails to comply with section 39 of this Act within the time required under this Act; or

           b) the information provided under section 39 of this Act does not, in the opinion of the Board, reflect the probable amount of the payroll of the employer or correctly describe the nature of the work carried on, the Board may assess such sum as it is in its opinion, the probable payroll of the employer or nature of the employer’s industry.

53(1) Any person authorized by the Board may examine the books and accounts of any employer as the Board deems necessary for administering this Act.                                                                   

     (2) For the purposes related to the administration of this Act, any person authorizes by the Board may at all reasonable hours, enter any past of the establishment of any employer or person who may be an employer.

     (3) An employer shall produce, within 30days of receiving notice, all documents, deeds papers and computer records which are in the possession, custody or power of the employer that relate to the subject matter of an examination under this section.

     (4) For the purposes of an examination or inquiry under this Section, the Board or any person authorized by it, shall have all the power of a Board of inquiry appointed under this Act.

     (5) Every person authorized by the Board to make an examination under this section may require and take a statement respecting the subject matter of an examination under this section.          

     (6) An employer or other person who obstructs or hinder the making of an examination under this section or who refuses to permit it to be made or who neglects or refuses to produce such documents, writings, books, deeds and papers or make statement required in the notice under this section, commits an offence.

     (7) In this section, an employer includes a person who the Board considers to be an employer or a principal.

     54 ‘An officer of the Board may for the purposes of carrying out his or her duties under this Act and any regulation made there under or pursuant to any enactment or law-

                   (a) enter in any workplace at any time with or without warrant or notice,

                   (b) require the production of any licence, document, record or report inspect and examine a copy of the same,

                   (c) remove any licence, document, record or report, inspected or examined for the purpose of making copies or extracts and upon making such copies or extracts, shall promptly return same to the person who produced or furnished them;

                   (d) in any inspection, examination or inquiry shall be accompanied and assisted by a police officer or other persons having special expert or professional knowledge of any matter in respect of which inspection is been earned out.

                   (e) make enquires of any person who is or was in a workplace either separate or in the presence of any other person who may be relevant to an inspection, examination or inquiry.          

                   (f) require that records or documents in a workplace or part thereof may not be distributed for a reasonable period of time for the purpose of carrying out an examination, investigation or inquiry;

 

  1. The claimant submitted that from the affidavit evidence particularly the facts contained in paragraphs 4-16, the defendant operates with an employer name known as and called Tansian University Umunya, Anambra State Ltd/Gte  (sic) and has employees of diverse categories including its academic staff such as professors, Associate Professors, Senior Lecturers, Lecturer I Lecturer II, Assistant Lecturers, Graduate Assistants, Heads of Departments and Deans of faculties, as well as Non-Academic Staff such as the Vice Chancellor, Registrar, Bursar, Director of Information and Communication Technology, Administrative Officers, Senior Library Officers, Higher Library Officers, Library Officers, Library Assistant, (sic) etc. whom the defendant pays salaries on a monthly basis. The claimant further submitted that by the provisions of section 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and the documentary evidence before the Court; that the defendant is for all intents and purposes an employer (sic), the claimant urged the Court to so hold.

 

  1. The claimant continued that being an employer within the meaning of the Act is mandatory required to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of its total monthly payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund established under section 56(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 pursuant to the provisions of section 33(1) of the Act as highlight. The claimant urged the Court to so hold. The claimant further submitted that it is the law as encapsulated in section 39(1) and 40 of the Act that every shall cause to be furnished to the claimant a complete and accurate estimate of the probable amount of the payroll of each of the employer’s industries within the scope of this Act; that the defendant is in default of this provision of the Act and has so remained till date despite the prompting from the claimant as evidence in paragraph 9(d) of the affidavit in support of the originating summons. the claimant urged the Court to so hold.

 

  1. On issue (2), the claimant submitted that with the combined effect of section 36(2), 39(2) and 48(1)(a) & (b) of ECA, 2010 (supra) empowers the claimant to make an estimate of the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll, assess the required 1% of same and levy the defendant on that estimate and the defendant is bound by it; that this can only be done by the claimant when the defendant has refused to comply with sections 36(2)  and 39(1), 48(1)(a) & (b) of the ECA, 2010 particularly, failure to provide the claimant with the requirements itemized in section 39(1)(a), (b)(i-iii). That the defendant has failed to meet these requirements despite various forms of entreaties from the claimant; that the claimant in her magnanimity wrote to the defendant demanding to be provided the documents required for the statutory assessment/inspection to determine what represents the 1% of the defendant’s total payroll in line with section 33(1) of the ECA as evidenced in Exhibit NSITF “D” but the defendant wilfully (sic) failed/refused to cooperate with the claimant. The claimant refers the Court to Paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the affidavit in support of the claimant’s originating summons. The claimant urged the Court to so hold.

 

  1. The claimant argued issues (3) and (4) together given their close relationship and response to both issues remains in the affirmative; that the two scenarios are involved; one is a penalty for contravention of section 39(1) of the ECA as clearly spelt out in section 39(2) and second is for failure on the part of the defendant to pay her established liability as provided for in section 46 of the ECA; that section 39(2) applies empowering the claimant to impose a penalty for default in a percentage based on the claimant’s discretion while the second instance provides the percentage of penalty to be imposed by the law itself which is 1.0 percent (section 46 of the ECA). The claimant refers the Court to Exhibit NSITF “F” and the claimant’s reliefs 7 and 8 to the extent that the ECA as the extant law empowered the impositions of penalties as reflected. The claimant prays the Court to uphold her argument on issue 3 and 4.

 

  1. On issue (5), the claimant submitted that section 36(1) is one provision of the ECA, 2010 that is devoid of any ambiguity whatsoever and therefore ought to be given the literal interpretation, it simply provides thus: “The Board shall have a cause of action for any unpaid assessment and shall be entitled to the cost of any action to recover the unpaid assessment.” That the above section is dual in its applicability; one is to give the claimant a right of action to recover any unpaid assessment from the defendant and the other is to give the claimant an entitlement to cost incurred in the recovery of any such unpaid assessment as costs follow events; that there is therefore no reason why the claimant should not be entitled to her relief no. 9 and the claimant pray the Court to so hold.

 

  1. On issue (6), the claimant submitted that the issue ought to be resolved by a literal interpretation of section 53(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6) and (7); and 54 (a)(b)(c)(d)(e)(f) and (g) of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010 as the only logical conclusion worthy of arrival will be to resolve same in the affirmative; that it is a part of the claimant’s evidence that officers of the claimant have consistently been refused access to the defendant’s payrolls and books of accounts for inspection in breach of the provisions of section 53 and 54 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010. The claimant refers the Court to paragraphs 9 and 10 of the claimant’s affidavit in support of originating summons.

 

  1. In conclusion, the claimant urged to so hold and resolve the issues for determination in favour of the claimant and grant the reliefs sought.

 

  1. The defendant did not file any counter affidavit in opposition to the claimant’s originating summons

 

COURT’S DECISION

  1. I have carefully considered the processes filed and the submissions of the claimant. By Section 131 of the Evidence Act, in civil cases, the burden of proof is on the party who asserts a fact to prove same, for he who asserts must prove. The standard of proof required is on a preponderance of evidence and balance of probabilities. See Longe v. FBN Plc (2006) 3 NWLR (Pt 967) 228. In civil cases, the onus of proving an allegation is on the plaintiff. A party must prove its case on credible evidence and is not at liberty in law to make a case or rely on the weakness of its opposite party in order to succeed. See Iman v. Sheriff (2005) 4 NWLR (Pt. 914) 80.

 

  1. Reliefs (1) and (2) are declaratory reliefs wherein the defendant is obligated by the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010 to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2024 up to date and thereafter into the Employees Compensation Fund managed by the claimant and that the defendant is obliged to cause to be furnished to the claimant complete and accurate particulars of the defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2024 up to date and thereafter. In proof of these reliefs the claimant averred in his affidavit in support of the originating summons particularly paragraphs 6, 7 and 8. Thus Section 73 of the Employees Compensation Act provides–

“Employer includes any Individual, body corporate, Federal, State or Local Government or any of the Government agencies who has entered into a contract of employment to employ other person as an employee or apprentice.”

The claimant stated in paragraph 5 and 6 of his affidavit that the defendant “is a secondary school incorporated on 30 July 2024 with registered address at Nteje, Anambra State and carries on her operation with employees of diverse categories such as teachers and administrative staff whom the defendant pays salaries on a monthly basis.” The defendant hereby qualifies as an Employer by the Act and I so hold. Furthermore, Section 33 (1) of the Employees Compensation Act 2010 provides thus:

“Every employer, shall within the first two years of the commencement of this Act make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of the total monthly payroll into the fund”.

The word “shall” in this law is mandatory. This payment is for the compensation of employees who suffer from occupational disease or sustain injuries arising from accidents at workplace or in the course of employment.       The defendant failed to do so even though this Act and its provisions were introduced to her through Exhibits NSITF A, NSITF B and NSITF C which also showed receipt of the documents. The claimant by this have proved reliefs (1) and (2) and I hold that it is grantable.

 

  1. Relief (3) is for cost of any action to recover the unpaid assessment from the defendant. The cost of the action from the record was not established. There was no evidence as to how much was expended and the mere asking for it cannot suffice. The Court is not expected to begin to conjure likely sums that were expended, as it is a relief for special damages which must be specifically pleaded and proved. Strict proof of damages in fact means that the evidence adduced on their proof, must show particularly in accordance with the pleadings and the claim must also be based upon precise calculation so as to enable the defendant access to the fact which makes such calculation. See FBN Plc v. Associated Motors Co Ltd (1998) 10 NWLR (Pt. 570) 441, Ngilari v. Mothercat Ltd (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 636) 626. It is trite that each item of special damages claimed must be specially proved and such proof must also be characterized by testimony that ties each item with the proof proffered. See David Taylor & anor v. Edwin Ogheneovo (2011) 51 WRN, 155 @ 159-160. See also Divine Ideas Ltd v. Umoru (2007) All FWLR Pt. 380 1468 and Fortune International Bank Plc v. City Express Bank Ltd (2002) 14 NWLR 86. Relief (3) therefore fails and cannot be granted. 

 

  1. Relief (4) prays for a declaration that given the defendant’s wilful (sic) refusal to provide the claimant with her complete and accurate payroll for assessment, the claimant is entitled to assess the defendant of 1.0 percent of the defendant’s total monthly payroll based on estimates, the outcome of which the defendant is bound to pay. The claimant submitted that he delivered Exhibits NSITF A, NSITF B, NSITF C and NSITF D to the defendant.  The exhibits attached to the claimant originating summons at pages 11 to 18 of the case file shows that “Exhibit NSITF A – NSITF F” were duly served on the defendant. It goes to show that the claimant has done what is required of him to do. By section 39 Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 which stated it clearly that the employer shall furnish to the board complete and accurate particulars of the employer’s payrolls.

 

  1. The position of the law is no longer disputable; and it is clear and evident as averred by the claimant that the defendant operates the business of a school with employees it pays on a monthly basis. The claimant also proved that it introduced the Employees’ Compensation Scheme (ECS) and enjoined the defendant to key into the scheme as required by the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 for the benefit of its employees through Exhibits NSITF A, NSITF B, NSITF C and NSITF D. The claimant has proved these reliefs on a balance of probabilities and accordingly, relief (4) is granted and I so hold.

 

  1. Relief (5) is an order compelling the defendant to provide the claimant with estimates of the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll from February 2022 up to date and thereafter, and signed copies of reports of the employer’s payrolls for each year from February 2022 up to date and thereafter. By section 33(1) of the Act, the defendant shall compute/calculate and make a minimum contribution of 1.0 percent of the total monthly payroll of the defendant from February 2022 up to date and thereafter into the Employees’ Compensation Fund. These provisions are mandatory on the defendant to do accordingly. The claimant also submitted that he delivered Exhibits NSTIF A NSTIF B, NSTIF C, NSTIF D, NSITF E and NSITF F to the defendant. It goes to show that the claimant has done what is required of him to do. 

 

  1. The position of the law is no longer disputable; and it is clear and evident as averred by the claimant that the defendant operates the business of a school with employees it pays on a monthly basis. The claimant also proved that it introduced the Employees’ Compensation Scheme (ECS) to and enjoined the defendant to key into the scheme as required by the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 for the benefit of its employees through Exhibits NSITF A, NSITF B, NSITF C and NSITF D. The claimant has proved these reliefs on a balance of probabilities and accordingly, relief (5) is granted and I so hold.

 

  1. Relief (6), is an order directing the defendant to pay into Employees’ Compensation Fund the sum One Hundred and Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira (?104,500,000.00) only, as an outstanding sum established through a statutory estimation of the defendant’s salaries and wages record for the period July 2024 to February 2025. By the provision of section 53 (3) of the ECA, 2010: 

“An employer shall produce, within 30 days of receiving notice from the Board, and in the manner set out in the notice, all documents, deeds, papers and computer records which are in the possession, custody or power of the employer that relate to the subject matter of an examination under this section”

The claimant submitted that officers of the claimant have consistently been refused access to the defendant’s payroll and books of accounts for inspection in breach of the provisions of sections 53 and 54 of the ECA, 2010.

 

  1. By Mr. Suraju Rufai v.  Bureau of Public Enterprises & 4 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/16/2013, the judgment of which was delivered on 4 June 2018, for instance, this is what this Court said: 

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 t (Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd (2015) 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39), not the oral testimony of the claimant except if corroborated by some other credible evidence. 

See also Stephen Ayaogu & 16 ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/38/2010, the judgment of which was delivered on 27 October 2017. In fact, Mr. Joseph Akintola & ors v. Lafarge Cement WAPCO Nigeria Plc (2015) LPELR-24630-24630 (CA) specifically cautions against the reliance on an oral contract as proof of such entitlement.

 

  1. The claimant’s Exhibit NSITF E headed letter of Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund as proof of demand notice for the payment of an estimated assessment to the sum of One Hundred and Four Million, Five Hundred Naira (104,500,000,000) Only Being Your company 1% (One Percent) Contribution into the Employee’s Compensation Fund dated 11th June 2025 attached to Exhibit NSITF E is a computer generated document, headed: Region- Enugu with inscription- Branch: Onitsha, Name of Employer: Marist Comprehensive College Nteje, Location Address: Nteje Anambra State and also attached to Exhibit NSITF E is a UPS Waybill receipt without proof that the defendant received the said exhibit. This attached document was not originated from the defendant but it was rather fabricated by the claimant for the purpose of this suit and are not true reflection of his claim; there is no proof of service of same on the defendant. I so find and hold. Relief (6) fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

  1. Relief (7), is an order directing the defendant to pay into the Employee s’ compensation Fund the sum of Forty-One Million, Eight Hundred Thousand Naira (?41,000,800.00) only, being an amount equal to 40% of the defendant outstanding liability established through estimation, as penalty for default in failing to cause to be furnished to the Fund estimates of the probable amount of the Employer’s payrolls and signed copies of the fund estimates of the probable amount of the Employer’s payrolls and signed copies of the total monthly payroll for each year from July 2024 up to date and thereafter, and for failure to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1% of total monthly payroll for the period under review into the Employee’s Compensation Fund managed by the claimant. Section 39 (4) of the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010 provides that where the defendant does not furnish complete and accurate particulars of the defendant’s payroll to the claimant, or if the particulars of the payroll is not true and accurate, whether the defendant for every failure to comply and for every such particulars of the payroll shall be liable to imprisonment or fine or both imprisonment and fine. Relief 7 is refused as the present suit is seeking the recovery of outstanding arrears of statutory contribution to the Employees Compensation Fund owed as debt by the defendant and not enforcement of penalties for non-compliance under the Act.

 

  1. Having dismissed reliefs (3), (6) and (7) of the claimant’s claim, I am of the firm view that proceeding to consider relief (8) & (9) tantamounts to a hypothetical/academic exercise. In Imegwu v. Okolocha & ors (2013) LPELR-19886 (SC), the Apex Court held per Ariwoola, JSC thus:

This Court or any other Court should not be engaged in deciding on cases, the result of which will not award or grant any benefit to the appellant. In Olafisoye v. FRN (2004) 4 NWLR (Pt. 864) 580 at 654-655, this Court, per Tobi, JSC opined as follows: “I do not think this Court has the competence to go into the above hypothetical point. Courts of law, as most serious and sacred institution do not build on hypothesis … The adjective hypothetical means that which has not been proved or shown to be real. A theoretical hypothetical point is not for this Court or any other Nigerian Court for that matter.” In Mamman v. Salaudeen (2005) 125 SCM 260; (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt. 958) 478 at 500, this Court per Onnoghen, JSC opined as follows: “It must be borne in mind that the Court is not interested in determining academic questions, a favourable resolution of which will have no effect…”

 

  1. On Relief (10) seeking the sealing up of the defendant’s business premises, this Court is of the view that such enforcement measures are matters primarily regulated by the statutory administrative enforcement procedures established under the Act. Accordingly, this Court declines to make the order sought in that regard at this stage.

 

  1. In all, the claimant’s case succeeds in part in terms of the following declarations and orders:
    1. It is hereby declared that the defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 and by so being, obligated to make a minimum monthly contribution of 1.0 percent of the defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2024 up to date and thereafter into the Employees Compensation Fund Managed by the claimant.
    2. It is hereby declared that the defendant being an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act 2010 is obligated to cause to be furnished to the claimant complete and accurate particulars of the defendant’s total monthly payroll from July 2024 up to date and thereafter.
    3. It is hereby declared that the claimant is entitled to assess the defendant of 1.0 percent of the defendant’s total monthly payroll based on estimates, the outcome of which the defendant is bound to pay.
    4. The defendant is compelled to provide the claimant with estimates of the probable amount of the defendant’s payroll from July 2024 up to date and thereafter, and signed copies of reports of the employer’s payrolls for each year from July 2024 up to date and thereafter.  

 

  1. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to costs.

 

Hon Justice J.I. Targema, PhD