IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HONOURABLE JUSTICE O. Y. ANUWE

 

Dated: 2nd May 2024                                                           

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/94/2022

 

Between:

 

Durojaiye Hassan                                                  -                                               Claimant

 

And

 

Leadership Newspapers Group Ltd                             -                                               Defendant

 

Representation:

Henry K. Eni-Otu, with him, Maryam El-Yakub and Ruth Odimegwu for the Claimant

Ejikeme Obiefuna for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

The claimant instituted this suit by a Complaint filed on 18th March 2022. The claims of the claimant against the defendant are as follows:

1.         A Declaration that the Defendant has breached the claimant’s rights to wages and salaries.

2.         A Declaration that the claimant is entitled to the salary arrears of N4,898,923.

3.         A Direction that the N2,000,000 deducted by the claimant as lien for his unpaid salaries in the subsequent job sourced in his personal capacity with the Kogi State Government be kept as part of his outstanding salary arrears.

4.         An Order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N2,898,923 as the outstanding salary arrears of the claimant less the N2,000,000 which was deducted as lien.

5.         A Declaration that the one-year salary waiver of N1,350,625 enforced on the claimant by the Defendant is unlawful.

6.         An Order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N1,350,625 to the claimant.

7.         A Declaration that the deduction of N70,000 monthly from the salaries of the claimant between August 2014 and January 2016 amounting to N1,190,000 is illegal and abuse of privilege and powers.

8.         An Order directing the Defendant to refund the sum N1,190,000 illegally deducted from the claimant’s salaries.

9.         A Declaration that the freezing of the salary of staffs inclusive of that of the claimant is illegal, unlawful and unacceptable.

10.       An Order directing the Defendant to repay the claimant’s salary for the six months wherein his salaries were unjustly frozen as may be assessed by the Court.

11.       A Declaration that the claimant be paid his lawfully earned commission for the jobs he attracted to the Defendant from June 2017 up to the date of filing this suit.

12.       An Order directing the Defendant to pay as commission to the claimant, the sum of N4,944,000 being 30% of the N16,480,000 that was paid to the Defendant by the Kogi State Government for the advertisement job that was attracted to the Defendant by the Claimant.

13.       An Order directing the Defendant to pay as commission to the claimant the sum of N4,128,000.00 being 30% of the N13,760,000.00 that was paid to the Defendant by the Kogi State Government for the advertisement job that was attracted to the Defendant by the claimant.

14.       A Declaration that the non-remittance of the income tax of the claimant which was deducted at source to the relevant tax authorities is illegal.

15.       An Order directing the Defendant to forthwith remit the Personal Income Tax of the claimant for the entire 7 years that he worked with the Defendant to the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) and/or the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS). In the alternative, an Order directing the Defendant to pay the Personal Income of the claimant for the entire 7 years that he worked with the Defendant to him for the further remittance of same to the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) and/or the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS).

16.       A Declaration that the publication of disclaimer on the claimant by the Defendant is malicious, spiteful, malevolent, grossly defamatory and impugns on the character and integrity of the claimant.

17.       An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the claimant the Sum of N500,000,000 as General Damages for defamation.

18.       An Order directing the Defendant to publish a retraction of the disclaimer on the claimant in the Newspaper that was published by it, Leadership Newspaper, and any other news media wherein the disclaimer was published to run for the same number of days and pages the initial disclaimer was published.

19.       An Order directing the Defendant to write an unreserved apology to me and publish same in two national dailies.

20.       The sum of N2,000,000 being the cost of this suit.

21.       20% on the judgment sum per annum until final liquidation of the judgment sum by the Defendant.

 

CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

In proof of these claims, the claimant testified as the sole witness. His evidence, which is in line with the facts pleaded in the statement of facts, is as follows: The defendant is an incorporated company who employed him on 13th October 2011 as Manager (Research and Market Intelligence) vide a letter of employment dated 12th October 2011. His basic salary when he was employed was the sum of N576,000 per annum as well as N384,000 in allowances all payable in arrears. He voluntarily resigned from the employment of the defendant vide a letter dated 10th July 2017 and his resignation was accepted vide a letter of acceptance dated 9th July 2017. While in the employment of the defendant, he was promoted a number of times and each promotion earned him increases in his salaries. His salary rose up to N2,400,000 per annum in June 2016 and to N4,200,000 per annum in December 2016. His last promotion was on 22nd March 2017 in which he was made the Group Adverts Director. His salaries for three consecutive years were not paid despite having been due and payable in arrears as envisaged from the letters of appointments. His nominal outstanding salary owed is N4,898,923 based on the Internal Memorandum dated 25th September 2017. The Defendant was in the habit of deducting his salary for some alleged unpaid advert debt. This is contained in different documents inclusive of a memorandum dated 6th November 2014. The Defendant deducts N70,000 monthly from his salary from August 2014 up till January 2016. The total amount that was deducted from his salary by the Defendant between August 2014 and January 2016 is the sum of N1,190,000.

 

On 16th May 2016, a letter of demand in respect of purported unpaid advert outstanding from adverts of different individuals and agencies amongst others sourced and attracted by him to the Defendant with threats of disclaimer and recourse to recover same through a legal action. In their attempt to frustrate his rights to pay, on 21st day of August 2014, he was issued an invoice of N354,375 as salary deductions from March 2014 to May 2014. In their attempt to further frustrate his rights to pay, on 27th May 2015, he was issued an invoice of N996,250 as salary deductions from August 2014 to May 2015. The total amount that was deducted from his Salary between March 2014 and May 2015 is the sum of N1,350,625.

 

The defendant willfully froze the salary of staff, including that of the claimant for a period of six months. Since leaving the employment of the Defendant in July 2017 up till date, he has made several requests for the payment of his outstanding salary arrears but the request always fell on deaf ears. Despite his Personal Income Tax being deducted at source, the Defendant has refused to remit same to the relevant tax authorities. He got to know about the non-remittance of his Personal Income Tax when he approached the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) and the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS) to ask for his tax clearance certificate and he was told that he has no tax records with the FIRS for the past seven years.

 

After resigning from the employment of the Defendant, he got a contract with the Kogi State Government for the placement of adverts on national dailies. He decided to make offer for the placement of the adverts with the Defendant, with an agreement for commission, which on the agreement of both parties the paltry sum of N3,000,000.00 was agreed for the contract worth about N45,500,000. When the N45,500,000 was paid into his personal account, he transferred the sum of N39,500,000 to the Defendant in two installments and he withheld the sum of N3,000,000 as the agreed commission, another sum of N1,000,000.00 as approved by the Defendant's General Manager as facilitation fee to the facilitator of the Contract and another N2,000,000.00 as lien for his outstanding lawfully earned and due salary arrears. Three weeks after the perfection of the advertisement contract, the General Manager of the Defendant called him to inform him that the Chairman of the Defendant ask that he returns the commission and the amount taken as a lien so as for the defendant to pay him. He requested that the offer for payment be made in writing so as to enable him consider whether or not to accept same but the Defendant refused to come up with any written offer. Rather, he was arrested by officers of the Nigeria Police Force under the personal aides of the Chairman of the Defendant. It took the intervention of his lawyer to secure his bail from the Police custody.

 

He had already sourced for advert, perfected same and contracted same with the Defendant in respect to the two different contracts before his arrest that was orchestrated by the Defendant. Immediately after his arrest, the Defendant through its Chairman went behind him to collect the money from the client. The amount collected by the Defendant for the transactions are N16,480,000.00 from Kogi State Government in an advert placement contract and N13,760,000.00 from Kogi State Government in another advert placement contract. The payment of commission in sourcing for adverts in the media world is customary and a usual practice. In a recent memorandum by the Defendant, the commission for sourcing for advert placement is 30% of the paid sum. Based on the memorandum, his commission for bringing the job to Leadership Newspaper is 30% of the sum paid. Thus, he is entitled to the sums of N4,944,000.00 and N4,128,000 being 30% respectively of the sums of N16,480,000 and N13,760,000.00 that was paid to the Defendant by the Kogi State Government for the advertisement job that was attracted to the Defendant by the Claimant.

 

From 13th November, the Defendant has been publishing a disclaimer on him in its daily Newspaper, Leadership Newspaper, continuously on daily basis. The disclaimer was malicious and same was intended to impugn his character which it has succeeded in doing. The continuous publication of the disclaimer has totally tarnished his image in the News Media industry and made his ability to source for advert placement in any Newspaper or media impossible. On the 14th November 2017, he instructed his Solicitors in Pelumi Olajengbesi & Co to write a demand letter to the defendant to, among others, desist from publishing the disclaimer about him. Despite receiving the letter, the Defendant still continued the publication of the disclaimer. Seeing that the disclaimer is seriously denting his image, he asked his Solicitors to file this suit immediately.

 

The claimant tendered several documents in evidence. These documents were admitted in evidence and marked respectively from Exhibit C1 to C17. In cross examination by counsel for the defendant, the claimant further testified that he was not paid 3 years salaries. This was 2014, 2015 and 2016 and he resigned in 2017. He was not singled out for non-payment and he cannot remember the exact figure he was owed for the 3 years but it is contained in the documents before the court. After he resigned in July, he went back to the company for his salary and the account department did reconciliation and came up with Exhibit C16. He confirmed that letters of demand were sent to him for the adverts placed through him but it is not true that over N4,000,000 was demanded from him. The figures in Exhibit C8 are not personal debts incurred by him but they are debts from adverts placed through him. Pre-paid adverts are usually paid for before the adverts are published. His salary was paid through the bank but the statement of his account is not before the court. Exhibit C15 is from Leadership Newspaper and it was made after he left the defendant. He still places adverts for Leadership on freelance basis and he gets paid his commission. He had no written contract authorizing him to place a lien on their money.

 

DEFENCE OF THE DEFENDANT

The defendant filed a defence to the suit and called one witness. The witness, DW1, is one Samuel Kato. He said he is a staff of the Defendant and the Assistant Manager, Special Project II. The evidence of DW1 is substantially a repetition of the content of the statement of defence.  The statements he made in his evidence which have semblance of material evidence are as follows: There is only one incorporated name known as Leadership Group Ltd and not Leadership Newspapers Group Ltd. The Claimant was only appointed to different positions and promoted once or twice based on consideration outside what the Claimant averred. The defendant is not indebted to the Claimant of his salaries in any sum. The figures being claimed by the Claimant in the internal memo as the sum being claimed was never the final figures as the memo was meant to move to other designated departments for scrutiny, vetting, and approval which were not the case here. The Defendant cannot be liable to the production of an untreated internal memo which was not addressed to the Claimant and which can never be in the form as presented by the Claimant. Any reduction in the salary of the Claimant (if any) was duly communicated to him and the reasons for that as well which the Claimant acknowledged and accepted in good faith without any form of complaint.

 

The existence or non existence of salary ledger is within Claimant's personal knowledge and he is expected to prove that strictly as he has never denied being indebted to the Defendant as clearly shown over his own process. The internal memo which was meant to be for the consumption of the staff dated 6th November, 2014 only showed clearly that the Claimant started misbehaving less than three years into the employment by refusing to remit the Defendant's funds into the designated account and he never challenged or disputed any of such debts contained therein. The Claimant never disputed any facts contained in the said letter and equally, yet to satisfy the demands made therein in full as he is still indebted to the Defendant. The Defendant did not frustrate any efforts made by the Claimant in paying advert debt he was owing to the Defendant as the Claimant had no authority to withhold any money meant to be paid into the Defendant's account as he had ample time to do so but never made any efforts contrary to his averments.

 

Whatever figures the Claimant mentioned, assuming the figures are correct, were part of the part payment of his unlawfully withholding advert money meant to be paid into the Defendant's account without any form of delay. Nothing shows that the letter was received in their office and that some officers are designated to receive letters on behalf of the Defendant and their positions must be clearly stated on the letter. DW1 stated further that he was informed by the Defendant's Counsel, Ejikeme Obiefuna of these facts: That this Court only entertains disputes arising from employer and employee relationship but the facts contained in paragraphs 24 to 38 happened after the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendant. As a result, the averments contained therein are not within the jurisdiction of this Court. DW1 also said the Defendant had no contract arrangement with the Claimant after he resigned from the Defendant's employment. He also denied that the Defendant published any disclaimer on the Claimant from the 13thNovember on a daily basis. The Defendant did not do anything or act in any malicious way capable of impugning on the character of the Claimant or tarnishing his image

 

In cross examination, the questions put to DW1 by Counsel for the claimant are mostly for the witness to confirm contents of some of the documents admitted in evidence. In that pattern, DW1 confirmed that the title of Exhibit C1 is Leadership Newspaper Group Ltd. He also confirmed Exhibit C6 does not show that advert fees can be deducted from the claimant. He confirmed that Exhibit C1 does not authorize the defendant to freeze or stop the salary of the claimant and that Exhibit C16 is the final entitlement of the claimant.

 

Upon close of the cross examination of DW1, counsel for the defendant tendered a document from the bar. It was admitted in evidence and marked Exhibit D1.

 

I have read the various final written addresses of counsels as well as the defendants’ reply on points of law. I do not see any reason to rehash their contents here. However, arguments proffered by counsels in their respective written addresses were duly considered and evaluated. Reference will be made to them as it becomes necessary in the course of this judgment.

 

   DECISION

In paragraph 2 of statement of defence, the defendant pleaded that there is only an incorporated name known as Leadership Group Ltd and not Leadership Newspaper Group Ltd. DW1 also said so in his evidence and during the trial of this suit, counsel for the defendant tendered the certificate of incorporation of Leadership Group Ltd in evidence from the Bar. The certificate is Exhibit D1. In paragraphs 5.01 to 5.05 of the final address of the defendant, it was argued by the learned counsel for the defendant that the body sued as defendant in this suit, in view of Exhibit D1, is not a juristic person and as such this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this suit. Counsel urged this court to dismiss this suit for this reason. In response, learned counsel for the claimant submitted, after referring to the name of the defendant as contained in some of the documents tendered in evidence, that the defendant is a recognized person in law and it is a proper party in this suit.

 

As submitted, rightly in my view, by the learned counsel for the defendant, only natural persons and juristic or artificial persons, such as bodies corporate or bodies created by statute, are competent to sue and be sued before any law court. No action can be brought by or against any party who is not a natural person or persons accorded legal personality. See THE ADMINISTRATORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENERAL SANI ABACHA (DECEASED) vs. EKE-SPIFF (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 467) 1 at 31; ABUBAKAR vs. YAR’ADUA (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 457) 1 at 136; UNITED TIPPERS DRIVERS ASSOCIATION (AKESAN BRANCH) vs. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF THE REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD (2016) LPELR - 40161 (CA). Therefore, an action cannot be maintained against a defendant who is not a legal person. Where it is clear that a defendant or any party to a suit is not a legal person, the party must be struck out.

 

The defendant in this suit, as expressed on the Complaint is “Leadership Newspapers Group Ltd”. The contention of the defendant is that the defendant is not a juristic person that can be sued because it is not an incorporated company. According to the defendant, the body that was incorporated by virtue of Exhibit D1 is “Leadership Group Ltd”. Now, the claimant averred in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the statement of facts that the defendant is an incorporated company who employed him on 13th October 2011. The claimant also made several averments showing that the person whom he sued as defendant in this suit is the person liable for the claims he sought in the suit.

 

The claimant’s employment letter is Exhibit C1. The heading of the letter indicates that the name of the claimant’s employer is LEADERSHIP NEWSPAPERS GROUP LIMITED. Exhibits C3, C4, C5, C6, C8 and C14a are letters written on letter head papers of Leadership Newspaper. The letter head papers either mentions LEADERSHIP NEWSPAPERS GROUP LTD or LEADERSHIP GROUP LTD. Exhibits C13a, C13b, C13c, C14b and C17 are cash receipts issued by Leadership Newspaper. The receipts indicate the name of the organization as LEADERSHIP NEWSPAPERS GROUP LIMITED. These exhibits show that there is a registered body called LEADERSHIP NEWSPAPERS GROUP LTD. More so, these documents were issued by the defendant confirming that its name is LEADERSHIP NEWSPAPERS GROUP LTD.

 

From the averments of the claimant and his evidence, the person who employed him, whom he related with and who his cause of action is against is the named defendant in this suit. Although the defendant contends that the defendant is not juristic, DW1 said in paragraph 1 of his deposition that he is a staff of the defendant. Further in his evidence, DW1 clearly confirmed that the named defendant is the person who is involved with the complaints of the claimant in this suit.  That is to say the defendant knows itself to be the one who has an employment relationship with the claimant, and is also the one involved in the disputes or the complaints or the claims of the claimant in this suit.

 

From the various letters of the defendants tendered in evidence, it shows that the defendant is a limited liability company in the name it was sued in this suit. I am convinced that the defendant is a juristic person and competent to be sued in this suit.

 

During the evidence of the claimant, leave was granted to the counsel for the defendant to argue his objection to the admissibility of the documents marked Exhibits C14, C15, C16 and C17 in the final written address. I have seen the grounds of objection to the admissibility of the documents and the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant in the final written address of the defendant. I have also read the arguments in reply contained in the claimant’s final written address. I will not belabour the issues. The documents in question have been pleaded by the claimant. The documents are also relevant to the case of the claimant. I am therefore inclined to retain them in evidence and consider their evidential value to the case of the claimant. Accordingly, the objections of the defendant to the admissibility of the specified documents are overruled.

 

I will now consider the case. The claimant sought several claims in this suit. I will examine each claim in line with the evidence adduced by the claimant to see whether he is entitled to all or any of the claims. Before I proceed, let me observe that reliefs 1, 2, 5, 7, 9, 11, 14 and 16 sought by the claimant are declaratory claims.  The claimant has the burden to prove the declaration sought to the satisfaction of the court. The law is trite that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant or on the weakness of the defendant’s case. See ADDAH vs. UBANDAWAKI [2015] 7 NWLR [Pt. 1458] 325; DUMEZ NIG. LTD vs. NWAKHOBA [2008] 18 NWLR [Pt. 1119] 361. Accordingly, the burden of proving the above claims, as well as all other claims sought in this suit, rests on the claimant. See Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. See also UMEOJIAKO vs. EZENAMUO [1990] 1 S.C. 239.

 

The claimant sought these claims in reliefs 2, 3 and 4:

2.         A declaration that the claimant is entitled to the salary arrears of N4,898,923.

3.         A direction that the N2,000,000 deducted by the claimant as lien for his unpaid salaries in the subsequent job sourced in his personal capacity with the Kogi State Government be kept as part of his outstanding salary arrears.

4.         An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N2,898,923 as the outstanding salary arrears of the claimant less the N2,000,000 which was deducted as lien.

 

The evidence he adduced in respect of these claims is that while he was in the employment of the defendant, he was promoted a number of times and each promotion earned him increases in his salaries. His salary rose up to N2,400,000 per annum in June 2016 and to N4,200,000 per annum in December 2016. His last promotion was on 22nd March 2017, in which he was made the Group Adverts Director. His salaries for three consecutive years were not paid despite having been due and payable in arrears as envisaged from the letters of appointments. He said his nominal outstanding salary owed is N4,898,923 based on the Internal Memorandum dated 25th September 2017. He continued that after resigning from the employment of the Defendant, he got a contract with the Kogi State Government for the placement of adverts on national dailies. He decided to make an offer for the placement of the adverts with the Defendant and it was agreed between him and the defendant that his commission was the sum of N3,000,000 from the contract sum of about N45,500,000. The contract sum of N45,500,000 was paid into his personal account and he transferred the sum of N39,500,000 to the Defendant but he withheld, among others, the sum of N2,000,000.00 as lien for his outstanding or unpaid salary.

 

On his part, DW1 said the defendant is not indebted to the Claimant in arrears of salaries in any sum, and the figures being claimed by the Claimant in the internal memo as the sum of his arrears of salary was not the final figure because the memo was meant to move to other departments for scrutiny, vetting, and approval which were not done. DW1 also testified that the Defendant cannot be liable to the production of an untreated internal memo which was not addressed to the Claimant and which can never be in the form as presented by the Claimant.

 

The claimant has sought a declaration that he is entitled to salary arrears of N4,898,923. All he said about this sum in his evidence is that his salaries for three consecutive years were not paid despite having been due and payable in arrears as envisaged from the letters of appointments, and that his nominal outstanding salary owed is N4,898,923 based on the Internal Memorandum dated 25th September 2017. The sum claimed as arrears of salaries, from his evidence, accrued for 3 years but the claimant failed to tell the court which years were the 3 years in which his salaries were not paid. The claimant also failed to explain how the sum of N4,898,923 accrued as unpaid salaries for 3 years. He simply said his salary rose up to N2,400,000 per annum in June 2016 and to N4,200,000 per annum in December 2016. He did not adduce evidence to show how the arrears of his salary amounts to N4,898,923.

 

The claimant seems to rely on the Internal Memorandum dated 25th September 2017 to found his claim for arrears of salary in the sum of N4,898,923. This internal memo is Exhibit C16. The defendant admits the internal memo but said the memo did not go through the process for its approval and being an untreated memo, it cannot bind the Defendant.

 

The memo is from Assistant Manager, Personnel and Admin to the Director Human Resources on the final entitlements of the claimant. It contains a breakdown of the claimant’s final entitlement and stated in its opening paragraph that the breakdown of the claimant’s final entitlements is for “approval”. The defendant has now said that the memo was not treated or approved. The claimant has not shown in this case that the memo or the breakdown of his entitlements in the memo received the required approval. The claimant did not also produce any letter addressed to him by the defendant stating the sum of his entitlement or salary arrears to be as stated in the Memo as to suggest that the defendant approved the memo or confirmed the sum now being claimed by the claimant. The implication of these missing facts is that the claimant cannot place reliance on the memo in his claim for arrears of salaries.

 

In cross examination, DW1 confirmed that Exhibit C16 is the final entitlement of the claimant. Assuming, based on this evidence of DW1, that the memo was approved by the defendant, does it prove the claim of the claimant to arrears of salary in the sum of N4,898,923? I do not think so. The computation or particulars of the claimant’s entitlements contained in the memo were not pleaded by the claimant.  That is not all. The computation or breakdown of the entitlements in the memo bringing the total entitlement to the sum of N4,898,923 is not only arrears of salary.  The breakdown include pension and leave allowances. Again, the arrears of salary included in the breakdown are only for some months in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and not for “three consecutive years” as claimed by the claimant. I also see in the memo that, although the total sum of arrears of salary, pension and leave allowances is the sum of N4,898,923, there is an advert debt amounting to the sum of N3,872,272.16 against the claimant. The computation includes a subtraction of the debt from the entitlement, leaving the balance of N1,026,651. While the claimant relied on the memo for the arrears of his salaries, he did not dispute the advert debts the memo said he owed. Having examined Exhibit C16, it is my view that it does not prove the claimant’s claim to arrears of salary in the sum of N4,898,923.

 

Consequently, and in view of the foregoing, the claimant has failed to prove the declaration he sought in relief 2 to the satisfaction of the court. The claimant claimed reliefs 3 and 4 on the basis of the declaration he sought in relief 1. Believing that the defendant is indebted to him for arrears of salary in the sum of N4,898,923, the claimant withheld the sum of N2,000,000 from the money meant for the defendant. He said the N2,000,000, was a lien on his unpaid salaries and wanted the court to sanction his action as part recovery of arrears of his salaries in his claim in relief 3. The claimant subsequently claims the balance of N2,898,923 in relief 4. Having failed to prove that he is entitled to salary arrears of N4,898,923, reliefs 3 and 4 sought by the claimant lack merit and similarly fail as a result.

 

In reliefs 5 and 6, the claimant sought a declaration that the one-year salary waiver of N1,350,625 enforced on him by the defendant is unlawful and an order directing the defendant to pay him the sum of N1,350,625. I examined the averments and evidence of the claimant carefully but I cannot find any where he pleaded or said in his evidence that the defendant enforced a one-year salary waiver of N1,350,625 on him. Where he mentioned the sum of N1,350,625 in his pleading and evidence is when he said the total sum of N1,350,625 was deducted from his salary between March 2014 and May 2015. What the claimant pleaded and said in his evidence is that the sum was deducted from his salary. But what he claims is that the same sum was salary waiver enforced on him by the defendant for one year. The claimant cannot make a claim suggesting that the defendant waived salary payment to the claimant but what he pleaded or said in his evidence, purporting to be in respect of the same claim, is that the sum was deducted from his salary. Both the claim and averments are conflicting and the implication is that the facts pleaded by the claimant and his evidence with respect to the sum of N1,350,625 does not support the claim in reliefs 5 and 6. Consequently, the claimant has failed to plead facts or adduce evidence to establish the claims in reliefs 5 and 6.

 

Despite the non-correlation between the pleaded facts and the claims in reliefs 5 and 6, I also find that the claimant was unable prove that he is entitled to a refund of the sum of N1,350,625 which he said was deducted from his salaries. His case is that there was a demand letter dated 16th May 2016 served on him demanding payment for unpaid advert. The claimant said in the attempt to frustrate his right to pay, on 21st August 2014, he was issued an invoice of N354,375 as salary deductions from March 2014 to May 2014 and on 27th May 2015, he was issued an invoice of N996,250 as salary deductions from August 2014 to May 2015. He said the total amount that was deducted from his Salary between March 2014 and May 2015 is the sum of N1,350,625. This is the sum he sought the order in relief 6 for the defendant to pay him.

 

The letter dated 16th May 2016 is Exhibit C8. In the letter, the defendant stated that the claimant has the sum of N4,539,654.23 as unpaid advert debt as at 26th May 2016. DW1 said the claimant never disputed any facts contained in the said letter and he is yet to satisfy the demands made therein in full as he is still indebted to the defendant. DW1 further said the defendant did not frustrate any efforts made by the Claimant in paying advert debt he was owing to the defendant. The evidence of DW1 disclosed that the claimant was indebted to the defendant for adverts.

 

From the evidence of the claimant, it will seems that it was after the demand letter in Exhibit C8 that the deductions were done from his salaries. I observe however that Exhibit C8 was written on 16th May 2016 and received by the claimant on 25th May 2016. Meanwhile, the invoices for salary deductions were issued on 21st August 2014 and 27th May 2015. The invoices are Exhibits C13a and C17 respectively. Clearly, the invoices were not issued nor were the deductions done on the basis of the demand in Exhibit C8, which was later in time to the invoices.

 

Now, Exhibits C13a and C17 were issued to the claimant while he was still in the defendant’s employment. He received them. He saw therein that his salaries were to be deducted to the tune of the sums stated in the invoices. He also saw that the deduction was meant as payment for published adverts. The claimant has not told the court that he protested the deductions at the time. I have also not heard him say in this case that he was not liable to pay for the published adverts for which Exhibits C13a and C17 were issued to him. He did not also say he was not indebted to the defendant to the sums stated in the invoices. When he said in his evidence that it was in the defendant’s attempt to frustrate his right to pay the debt demanded from him that he was issued the invoices of deductions from his salary, I find this evidence as a confirmation that he was indeed indebted to the defendant for published adverts. Having not denied being indebted to the defendant to the sums contained in Exhibits C13a and C17, being sums deducted from his salaries as debt he owed for published adverts, I cannot fault the defendant in deducting the debt from his salaries. The result is that the claimant failed to prove that the deduction of the sum of N1,350,625 from his salaries was unlawful.

 

From both the angles I have examined the claims in reliefs 5 and 6, I find that the claimant has failed to prove the claims.

 

Another claim of the claimant is his claim for payment of monies deducted from his salaries. In paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the statement of facts, the claimant averred that the defendant was in the habit of deducting his salary for some purported unpaid advert debt as contained in different documents inclusive of a memorandum dated 6th November 2014. He said the Defendant deducts N70,000 monthly from his salary from August 2014 up till January 2016. The total amount that was deducted from his salary by the Defendant between August 2014 and January 2016 is the sum of N1,190,000. The claimant pleaded a salary ledger showing the deductions from his salaries. The claimant gave evidence of these facts. Hence, in reliefs 7 of his claims, the claimant sought a declaration that the deduction of N70,000 monthly from the salaries of the claimant between August 2014 and January 2016 amounting to N1,190,000 is illegal and an abuse of privilege and powers. And in relief 8, he sought an order directing the Defendant to refund the sum N1,190,000 deducted from his salaries.

 

Responding to the allegations of the claimant, the defendant pleaded in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the statement of defence that the averments in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the statement of facts are denied but any reduction in the salary of the Claimant (if any) was duly communicated to him and the reasons for deduction was acknowledged and accepted in good faith without any form of complaint by the claimant. The defendant further averred that the existence or non-existence of salary ledger is within the Claimant's personal knowledge and the claimant has never denied being indebted to the Defendant. It was further averred by the defendant that the internal memo dated 6th November, 2014 was meant to be for the consumption of the staff and it only showed that the Claimant started misbehaving less than three years into the employment by refusing to remit the Defendant's funds into the designated account, and the claimant never challenged or disputed any of such debts contained therein. These averments were repeated in the evidence of DW1.

 

Relief 7 is a declaratory relief. The burden of proof of the claim is strictly on the claimant. In addition, the defendant did not admit deducting N70,000 from the claimant’s monthly salary in the said period, thus requiring the claimant to establish his claim. The claimant did not plead the statement of the account where his salary is paid and he did not tender any such statement of account in evidence. In cross examination, the claimant said his salary was paid through the bank but the statement of his account is not before the court. What he relied upon in this claim are a memorandum dated 6th November 2014 and a salary ledger showing the deductions from his salaries. I have examined the documents tendered in evidence by the claimant but I cannot find any document in the form of a ledger showing the deductions from his salaries from August 2014 to January 2016. However, Exhibit C10 is the memorandum dated 6th November 2014 which he referred to.

 

Exhibit C10 is an internal memo to the claimant dated 6th November 2014. The claimant was informed that the GED has directed that the sum of N70,000 be deducted from his monthly salary for debts due on some mentioned adverts. The memo only said a directive has been given for the deduction of the sum of N70,000 from the claimant’s monthly salary. The memo is not the evidence of the actual deduction from the claimant’s salaries. The memo did not also mention the effective time of the deduction or the period over which the deductions will cover. In my view, Exhibit C10 did not prove that the sum of N70,000 was deducted from the claimant’s monthly salaries from August 2014 to January 2016.

 

The evidence from which to ascertain the alleged deductions from his salary is the statement of his salary account. The claimant failed to produce it before the court. Again, although the claimant claims that the sum of N70,000 was deducted from his salaries from August 2014 to January 2016, he told the court in cross examination that he was not paid any salary at all for 3 years, being the years 2014, 2015 and 2016. This evidence contradicts his evidence in chief and renders his allegation of deduction from his salary in the same period unbelievable. In any event, I find that the claimant failed to prove his allegation of deduction of N70,000 from his monthly salaries from August 2014 to January 2016. The implication is that the declaration and the order sought in reliefs 7 and 8 were not proved.

 

The claimant also alleged that the defendant willfully froze the salary of staff, including his own, for a period of six months. He relied on the notice, being an internal memo, issued by the defendant for that purpose. For this reason, the claimant sought a declaration that the freezing of his salary and that of other staff is illegal, unlawful and then he sought an order directing the defendant to pay his salary for the six months in which salaries were frozen. See reliefs 9 and 10. The defendant denied this allegation of the claimant in paragraph 14 of the statement of defence effectively putting the claimant to prove that the defendant froze his salary or the salary of other staff for a period of six months.

 

Although the claimant stated that 6 months’ salary was frozen, he failed to mention the particular months or the year in which his salary was frozen. The claimant pleaded an internal memo issued by the defendant to notify staff of the freezing of salary but he failed to tender it in evidence. The claimant did not also tender his statement of account, which could show the sequence of payment or non-payment of his salaries, in evidence.

 

The result is that the claimant failed to prove that the defendant, whether for 6 months or at any time, froze his salary. Reliefs 9 and 10 have not been proved.

 

All the above claims I have considered are with regards to claims for salaries of the claimant. Having determined the claims, it takes me to relief 1 sought by the claimant where he sought a declaration that the Defendant breached his rights to wages and salaries. In view of the outcome of all his claims relating to salaries, I hold that the claimant has failed to prove this claim also.

 

The claimant’s case also includes claim for payment of commission as contained in reliefs 11, 12 and 13. The reliefs are these:

11.       A declaration that the claimant be paid his lawfully earned commission for the jobs he attracted to the Defendant from June 2017 up to the date of filing this suit.

12.       An Order directing the Defendant to pay as commission to the claimant, the sum of N4,944,000 being 30% of the N16,480,000 that was paid to the Defendant by the Kogi State Government for the advertisement job that was attracted to the Defendant by the claimant.

13.       An Order directing the Defendant to pay as commission to the claimant the sum of N4,128,000.00 being 30% of the N13,760,000.00 that was paid to the Defendant by the Kogi State Government for the advertisement job that was attracted to the Defendant by the claimant.

 

In his statement of facts as well as in his evidence, the claimant stated that after resigning from the employment of the Defendant, he got a contract with the Kogi State Government for the placement of adverts on national dailies. He decided to make an offer for the placement of the adverts with the Defendant, with an agreement for commission, which both parties agreed to be the sum of N3,000,000. The claimant also referred to a recent memorandum by the Defendant wherein the commission for sourcing for advert placement is 30% of the paid sum. The claimant said he sourced for 2 adverts from Kogi State Government, perfected them and contracted them with the Defendant. However, the defendant went behind him to collect the money from the client. The amount collected by the Defendant for the transactions are N16,480,000.00 from Kogi State Government in an advert placement contract and N13,760,000.00 from Kogi State Government in another advert placement contract. Based on the memorandum, his commission for bringing the job to the defendant’s Newspaper is 30% of the sum paid. Thus, he is entitled to the sums of N4,944,000.00 and N4,128,000 being 30% respectively of the sums of N16,480,000 and N13,760,000.00 that was paid to the Defendant by the Kogi State Government for the advertisement job that was attracted to the Defendant by him.

 

The defence of the defendant to these allegations of the claimant is that the above facts happened after the claimant had resigned from the employment of the defendant, and that the defendant did not have any contract arrangement with the claimant after he resigned from the defendant’s employment. To this extent, the defendant contended that this court does not have jurisdiction over the instant claims of the claimant.

 

From the evidence of the claimant, it is clear that he resigned from the employment of the defendant on 10th July 2017. His resignation letter is Exhibit C2. It is also clear from his evidence that it was after he had resigned from the defendant that he had the new arrangement with the defendant for placement of adverts and payment of commission. In his words, the claimant said it was after resigning from the employment of the Defendant that he got a contract for the placement of adverts on national dailies and he decided to make the offer for the placement of the adverts with the Defendant. He and the defendant agreed for payment of commission in the sum of N3,000,000 to him. It is further clear from his evidence that the placement of advert offer he made to the defendant and the agreement for payment of commission was a new contract entered into between the claimant and the defendant. This new contract was not an employment contract but a simple contract.

 

Thus, the advert placement contract he brought to the defendants upon which his claims in reliefs 11, 12 and 13 are based came about after he ceased to be an employee of the defendant. That is to say the contract from which reliefs 11, 12 and 13 arose was not an employment contract and was unconnected with or arose from contract of employment between the parties.

 

In Section 254C (1) a] of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), the jurisdiction of this court extends over matters or causes “relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the condition of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith.” Having considered reliefs 11, 12 and 13 sought by the claimant and the facts on which they are based, I find that this aspect of the claimant’s suit is not related to or connected with labour or employment matters spelt out in the above provision. These claims of the claimant arose from simple contract outside an employment contract. As such, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain or determine the claims. Accordingly, reliefs 11, 12 and 13 are struck out.

 

In relief 14, the claimant sought a declaration that the non-remittance of his income tax which was deducted at source to the relevant tax authorities is illegal. Then in relief 15, he sought an order directing the Defendant to remit his 7 years Personal Income Tax to the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) or to the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS). In the alternative to relief 15, the claimant sought an order directing the Defendant to pay his 7 years Personal Income Tax to him so that he can remit same to the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) or to the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS).

 

In his pleadings and well as in his evidence, the claimant said despite the fact that his Personal Income Tax was deducted at source, the Defendant refused to remit same to the relevant tax authorities. He got to know about the non-remittance of his Personal Income Tax when he approached the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) and the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS) to ask for his tax clearance certificate and he was told that he has no tax records with the FIRS for the past seven years he worked with the defendant. The defendant simply denied these allegations of the claimant without more. See paragraph 16 of the statement of defence.

 

Relief 14 is a declaratory claim. As usual, the claimant has the burden to prove the claim. In the claim, the claimant alleged the deduction of his Personal Income Tax [hereinafter referred to as “PIT”] from source, that is from his salaries, for a period of 7 years and non-remittance of the deducted PIT to either the Federal Inland Revenue Services (FIRS) or the Federal Capital Territory Internal Revenue Service (FCT-IRS). To establish the declaration sought, the claimant is first required to prove that sums were deducted from his salaries as PIT. It is after succeeding in this aspect he will proceed to prove that the deducted sums were not remitted to the relevant tax authority.

 

First of all, the claimant did not mention the amount that was being deducted from his salary every month for over 7 years as PIT by the defendant. Then, I examined the documents tendered in evidence by the claimant, especially his employment letter which is Exhibit C1, to see whether the breakdown of his monthly or per annum salary include deductions for PIT. I cannot find anywhere in the documents where the breakdown of his monthly or per annum salary is stated. In other words, none of his employment documents he put in evidence disclose that PIT is deductible from the claimant’s salary. Again, the claimant did not produce his pay slips for the 7 years period or any pay slip in the said period to the court for the court to see whether PIT was being deducted from his salaries. To worsen his case, the claimant did not produce the statement of his salary account in evidence. The claimant did not present any evidence before me to show that any sum was deducted from his salaries over the period of 7 year as PIT.

 

The failure of the claimant to prove deduction of PIT from his salaries implies that he failed to prove non-remittance of PIT to the tax authorities. Let me add that the allegation of non-remittance of his PIT to the tax authorities was based on what he said he was told. He said he approached the FIRS and the FCT-IRS to ask for his tax clearance certificate and he was told that he has no tax records with them. This evidence is not cogent enough to conclude that the defendant, if at all it was deducting PIT from the claimant’s salaries, did not remit same to the FIRS or the FCT-IRS. When the FIRS and the FCT-IRS told the claimant that he had no tax records with them, that is not sufficient evidence required from the claimant to prove that the defendant did not remit the claimant’s PIT.

 

Consequently, I do not find sufficient evidence to grant the declaration and the order sought by the claimant in reliefs 14 and 15.

 

Another aspect of the claimant’s case is where he said the defendant has been publishing a disclaimer on him in its Leadership Newspaper continuously on daily basis. The claimant said the disclaimer was malicious, intended to impugn his character and the publication of the disclaimer has totally tarnished his image in the News Media industry and made his ability to source for advert placement in any Newspaper or media impossible. He also stated that the defendant continued to publish the disclaimer which is seriously denting his image despite the letter from his solicitors to the defendant demanding the defendant to desist from publishing the disclaimer about him. On the basis of these facts, the claimant sought reliefs 16, 17, 18 and 19. I will repeat the reliefs here for purpose of clarity:

16.       A declaration that the publication of disclaimer on the claimant by the Defendant is malicious, spiteful, malevolent, grossly defamatory and impugns on the character and integrity of the claimant.

17.       An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the claimant the Sum of N500,000,000 as General Damages for defamation.

18.       An Order directing the Defendant to publish a retraction of the disclaimer on the claimant in the Newspaper that was published by it, Leadership Newspaper, and any other news media wherein the disclaimer was published to run for the same number of days and pages the initial disclaimer was published.

19.       An Order directing the Defendant to write an unreserved apology to the Claimant, and publish same in two national dailies.

 

From the facts and the reliefs sought, it is clear that this aspect of the case of the claimant is a claim in defamation. Cases based on defamation are purely under the common law of tort. The causes or subject matters which this court can entertain are as spelt out in Section 254C of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) and it does not include actions in tort of defamation. See AKPAN vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR (2016) LPELR-41242[CA]. The Court of Appeal recently made this pronouncement in ECOBANK (NIG). LTD vs. IDRIS (2021) LPELR-52806[CA], where the Court of Appeal held that in view of the subject matter jurisdiction of this court, as spelt out in Section 254C[1], [2] and [3] of the 1999 Constitution, cases or matters which border on tort of defamation is not one of the items. The court further held that even if the tortuous action happened in the course of the employment, it cannot be used to expand the jurisdiction of the court beyond its jurisdictional scope in Section 254C[1], [2] and [3] of the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the claimant was no longer an employee of the defendant when the disclaimers were published.

 

From the foregoing, it is my view therefore that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claims in relief 16, 17, 18 and 19 as they relate to tort of defamation. Consequently, the claimant’s reliefs 16, 17, 18 and 19 are hereby struck out.

 

The last claim of the claimant is for the sum of N2,000,000 as cost of this suit and interest at 20% per annum on the judgment sum until final liquidation by the Defendant. see reliefs 20 and 21. In view of the failure of the claimant to prove the main claims in this suit, these claims equally fail.

 

In the final result of this suit, reliefs 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19 are struck out while reliefs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 20 and 21 are dismissed.

 

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe

Judge