Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT UYO

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

 

DATE: 24th October, 2025                                SUIT NO: NICN/LA/218/2019

 

BETWEEN:

MR. GODWIN EMMANUEL KOBOKO           -           -           -           Claimant

 

AND

QUANTUM STEELS NIGERIA LIMITED                    -           -           Defendant

 

REPRESENTATION:

Claimant unrepresented

Oluwole Ademuwagun for the Defendant

 

JUDGMENT

 

This suit was commenced by a General Form of Complaint dated  and filed on the 8th May, 2019 along with other accompanying processes wherein the Claimant in his Statement of Facts claims against the Defendant as follows;

 

“(a)   A Declaration that the Defendant is liable to the Claimant for the grievous body injury caused by its Agent in the course of work/employment.

 

(b)     An Order awarding the sum of ?10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) against the Defendant only as General Damages for the assault, injury, pain, agony, suffering, waste of time and finances, incapacitation and loss of job, caused to the Claimant as a result of its expatriate Supervisor’s wild, inhuman and degrading act against the Claimant at workplace and in the course of employment.

 

(c)      The Attorney's fees in the sum of ?5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) Only.

 

(d)     The cost of this suit.”

 

In response to the initiating processes, the Defendant filed her Memorandum of appearance, a Notice of Preliminary Objection (NPO) and a statement of Defence on the 28th May, 2019. While the Claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of Defence on the 19th June, 2019. However the NPO was withdrawn by the Defendant and was accordingly struck out.

 

At the trial, the Claimant testified for himself as CW1 and adopted his statement on Oath dated 8/5/2019. Claimant also tendered Exhibits GK1 to GK3 and was crossexamined by the Defendant and discharged as there was no re-examination.

 

The Defendant then opened her defence on the 16th March, 2022 and called one Mr. Rahmon Mukaila Olanrewaju (DW1), who adopted his witness statement on Oath dated 28th May, 2019 and tendered Exhibit QS1a & b. DW1 was cross-examined by the Claimant’s counsel and as there was no re-examination, the case of the Defendant was closed and the matter was adjourned for adoption of Final Written Addresses.

 

CLAIMANT'S CASE

 

From the averred facts and the testimony of the Claimant, his case is that he was a contract staff of the Defendant and while on duty on 4/3/2019, he was assaulted and given multiple heavy slaps by one Mr. Ibrahim who is a senior agent/staff/supervisor of the defendant. That the Claimant was hospitalised for several days and underwent several medical treatments as a result of the injury he suffered resulting from the aforesaid multiple slaps and/or assault. That as a result of the injury suffered, he wrote a letter of demand for compensation dated 7/3/2019 to the Defendant but his aforesaid solicitor’s letter was not replied to by the Defendant as the Defendant failed to honour the demands contained in the letter hence this suit.

 

Under cross-examination, the Claimant reiterates that the Defendant did not give him any document to proof that he worked for the Defendant. That the Rolayo hospital where he was treated is still available, although he cannot remember the names of the other hospitals where he was treated because he fainted after the alleged assault.That he used to do binding and rolling works for the Defendant, and his salary was ?950 per day, which he worked everyday. That he got the money that he paid his lawyer from his family members. That the contents of his Statement on Oath was written for him after which he signed.

 

DEFENDANT’S CASE

 

It is the Defendant’s case that the Claimant is not its employee and that there was no expartriate by name Mr. Ibrahim in its employment. Defendant stated that the only thing that makes the Claimant to have access to its factory is because the Claimant worked with one of its independent contractors and that, it is only when the said independent contractor has a contract to execute with the Defendant that they bring in their workmen to assist them. Defendant also stated that it is not aware of the assault allegedly committed in its factory on the 4th day of March, 2019.

 

At the conclusion of evidence, parties filed their final written addresses.

 

DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

 

Defendant’s Final Written Address is dated and filed on 5/4/2022, wherein two issues were submitted by counsel to wit;

 

“1.      Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit?

 

2.        If answer to Issue No.1 is in the affirmative, whether the Defendant is liable to the claimant, as claimed”.

 

On issue one, counsel submitted that it is trite that jurisdiction defines the limit imposed on the power of a validly constituted Court to hear and determine issues between persons seeking to avail themselves of its process. That the jurisdiction of a court is determinable from the plaintiff's claims before the Court. Counsel cited Barclays Bank V. Central Bank (1976) 6 SC 175; Adeyemi V. Poeyori (1976) 9-10 SC 31 and Mrs Ngozi Caroline Nwagbo & Ors V. National intelligence Agency(2018) LPELR-46201(CA).

 

Counsel added that Section 254C(1) of 1999 Constitution vested this Honourable Court with exclusive jurisdiction to hear and entertain matters pertaining to payment or non-payment of salaries and many other work related rights.

 

Counsel contended that one way to determine if the Court has jurisdiction is to ask whether the rules needed to resolve the matter at hand are employment law rules. That if the answer is in the negative, then the Court may not have jurisdiction. Counsel referred to the Bench ruling of this Court in the case of Okosun V. A & P Foods Limited in Suit No. NICN/LA/474/20212 delivered on the 5th March, 2013. Referring also to Law and Practice of the National Industrial Court by Bamidele Aturu at page 44 to 45.

 

It is the submission of counsel that the main claim of the Claimant is damages for injury suffered as a result of the slaps he received from the purported agent/supervisor of the Defendant. That the Claimant’s claims relate to the purported assault committed on him by the purported agent of the Defendant.

 

Counsel maintained that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain an action rooted on any form of tortious liability. Counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Court of Appeal in United Bank for Africa & Ors V. Adekoyeni Oladejo (2021) LPELR-55320(CA).

 

Counsel argued that assuming not conceding that the purported employee of the Defendant assaulted the Claimant and that the tortfeasor and the victim are both workers of the Defendant that can still not vest this Honourable Court with jurisdiction to entertain the matter. A physical combat between two employees in an organisation cannot confer jurisdiction on this court under Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution. Citing Geoffrey V. Setraco Nig. Ltd & Ors (unreported ruling of this Honourable Court in Suit No. NIC/ABJ/296/2012 delivered on the 4th March, 2013; Ancha V. Nigerian Army & Ors (unreported ruling of this Court in Suit No. NIC/ABJ/32/2012 delivered on the 2nd July, 2012. That in Geoffrey V. Setraco Nig Ltd (supra) the Claimant was assaulted by a fellow worker or superior officer and verbally abused. The Court, upon a preliminary objection declined jurisdiction to entertain the matter under Section 254C (1)(d) of the 1999 Constitution.

 

Counsel concluded on this issue that on the authority of the above cases, it would be seen that the sole claim of the Claimant in the instant case is damages for the injury suffered as a result of the assault allegedly committed on him by one Ibrahim who he claimed,without any proof, was an employee of the Defendant.

 

On issue two, it is the contention of counsel that from the facts of this case the Claimant is claiming that the Defendant is vicariously liable to the injury he suffered in the hands of the purported Mr. Ibrahim. Counsel therefore stated that the Defendant denied knowledge of any incident of assault in its factory as alleged and it is trite that he who asserts must prove. Citing Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011.

 

Counsel argued that the Claimant did not lead any evidence of the injury suffered by him. That eventhough the Claimant alleged that he was treated by two hospitals, but no medical report of the treatment was produced. That the only thing relating to any hospital which was tendered by the Claimant was a medical card (Exhibit GK1) of Rolayo Hospital which does not mention or state the kind of treatment received by the Claimant.

 

It was also argued that the Claimant did not call any doctors that attended to him to give evidence. Under cross-examination, the Claimant stated that he lost the reports of the two hospitals he attended and that the two hospitals are still in existence. Counsel called in aid the provisions of Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which states: “that evidence which could be and is not produced, would if produced be unfavourable to the party who withholds it.”

 

Furthermore counsel maintained that for the Claimant to succeed in this case, he must also prove that the wrongdoer is a servant of the master. That to succeed for acts or torts committed by the employer or servant, it must be pleaded and proved by evidence that there was at the material time to the tort, the relationship of employer/employee, or master/servant between the tortfeasors and the party to be held liable for the tort. Counsel cited Gata V. Paulosa Nig. Ltd (1998) 3 NWLR PT. 543)104. That the Claimant also has a duty to prove that the wrongdoer acted in the course of his employment with the specific authority of the master/principal.

 

Counsel further submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove all the above cardinal principles of law and as earlier pointed out, the Claimant has also failed to prove any form of loss or damage. That the only evidence before the Court is contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the Claimant’s written statement on Oath where he said “..... several tests have been carried out to ascertain what has gone wrong with my chest and head”. And in paragraph 8, he said “That my fate is still hanging on the balance as at today as the doctors who are still trying to diagnose what has gone wrong are yet to know their final verdict on my sensitive body parts...” To the Defendant, this clearly shows that no damage has been established on the Claimant.

 

Counsel referred to the case of International Messengers Nig. Ltd V. Engineer David Nwachukwu (2004) LPELR-1526(SC) where the Supreme Court per Mustapher JSC (as he then was) has this to say: “To be entitled to compensation or damages in tort, the wrong must be accompanied by loss or damage, where none has been proved, there can be no liability”.  Citing also the case of Makwe V. Nwukor & Anor (2001) LPELR-1830(SC).

 

Counsel continued that it is evident that the CW1 is an illiterate, having said that he cannot read paragraph 10 of his statement on oath or any of the paragraphs of the Statement on Oath. He stated that the Statement on Oath was written for him and he was just asked to sign. Counsel therefore argued that the statement does not contain any illiterate Jurat and there is nothing to show therein that the Claimant is fully aware of the facts contained therein.

 

CLAIMANT'S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS

 

Claimant’s Final Written Address dated and filed on 25/5/2022 was deemed to have been adopted by virtue of Order 38 Rule 3(3) of the Rules of this Court wherein counsel to the Claimant formulated two issues for determination to wit;

 

“1.      Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit.

 

2.        Whether the Claimant has not proved his case against the Defendant to warrant judgment as per his reliefs against the Defendant.”

 

On issue one, counsel submitted that the current position of the law in Nigeria concerning all disputes arising from or connected to employment or place of work is as regulated by Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Section 254C(1)(a-m) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999.

 

Counsel also submitted that the above position received numerous judicial interpretations in the Apex court in support of this position. Counsel cited the cases of Fawehinmi V. IGP (2002) FWLR (PT.108) 1355 SC, Gafar V. Government of Kwara State (2007) 4 NWLR PT. 1024) 375; and Coca cola (Nig) Ltd V Akinsanya (2013) 18 NWLR PT. 1386) CA.

 

That in the case of Wodi V. Differential Aluminium and Steel Company Ltd  (2014) 42 NLLR PT.129) 45, the Court held that where an employee sustains an injury which occurred at workplace, it makes the injury one that is work related having occurred in the course of employment. That in the instant case, the fact of injury on the Claimant was not in doubt. The fact that the injury occurred at workplace was not also in doubt. Citing also the judgment of this Court decided on 17th July, 2013 in NICN/LA/262/2012 in Mr. Charles Nwaosa V. Ports & Terminal Multiservice Ltd & Anor.

 

Counsel reiterated that in the claim before the Court, the Claimant was on duty working as a staff of the Defendant when the Defendant’s Director/Supervisor caused him grievous injury and almost damaged his left ear. It was contended that the argument of the defendant is far from the basic position of the law and cannot be sustained in any Nigerian Court.

 

That in Suleiman V. Hongzing Steel Company Ltd (2015) 59 NLLR (PT 204) 240, it was held that by virtue of Section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction over claims in Negligence for injury sustained in the workplace and such a case is competent before the Court.

 

It is also counsel’s position that the injury caused to the Claimant by the Defendant can only be well ventilated at nowhere than the National Industrial Court of Nigeria. Referring to the case of Musaconi Ltd V. Aspinall (2013) 14 NWLR PT. 1375)435.

 

On issue two, counsel submitted that the Claimant has proved his case against the Defendant and as such he is entitled to the reliefs sought. That the Claimant adopted and relied on his statement on Oath as well as the exhibits he tendered in proving his case.That the Defendant employed him without issuing him any employment letter or any employment identity card.That he does not know any employer other than the Defendant and even after his injury, it was the Defendant that took care of his treatment and feeding expenses and the injury was caused by a senior/supervisor staff of the defendant whose name is Mr. Ibrahim.

 

Counsel continued that all the decisions or acts done by the company through its senior or management staff are done by the company itself and the company is bound to be held vicariously liable for such acts.

 

Counsel stated that the Claimant is not an illiterate. That he was unable to read due to the health challenges that brought him to court. But even if the Claimant is assumed to be an illiterate, section 4 of the Illiterate Protection Act covers the Claimant in a situation where the document involved e.g his statement on Oath was prepared on his instruction by his lawyer.That such failure to insert the Illiterate jurat  can only affect the weight to be attached to the document. Counsel cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Wilson V. Oshin (2000) 9 NWLR PT. 673) 442 and also referred to Order 5 Rule 6 of the National Industrial Court Civil Procedure Rules 2017.

 

Counsel finally urged the court to grant the reliefs sought in the interest of justice.

 

DEFENDANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

 

Counsel argued that the cases cited by learned counsel to the Claimant are not apposite to the facts of the present case. That the case of Fagbore V. Oando Plc & Anor. (2014)48 NLLR (PT.157) 349 relied upon is clearly different from the statement of facts in the instant case which relates to claims for a purported damages suffered by the Claimant while in the premises of the Defendant.

 

Counsel also argued that where the conversation in the case is employment related, the National Industrial Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter. However where the conversation in a case is not related to employment, as in the instant case, the National Industrial Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Counsel cited the case of Olushola & Anor V. Saliu (2021) LPELR-56027 (CA).

 

Counsel also contended that in resolving this issue, the claimant who asserted that he is an employee of the Defendant is expected to lead credible evidence in proof of his averment of this fact.That a person who asserts the existence of a fact must lead credible evidence in proof of his assertion. Citing Tari Vandighi V. Sebastine Hace (2014) LPELR-24196(CA).

 

Counsel concludes that the Claimant has failed to prove any injury so as to be entitled to damages, that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter, and the Claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought.

 

COURT'S DECISION

 

I have carefully gone through the pleadings filed by the parties and the evidence adduced. I have also considered the submissions of the respective counsel for the parties and from the averred facts of the case of the Claimant, his case is that he was an employee of the Defendant, and while he was on duty, he was assaulted and given multiple heavy slaps by one Mr. Ibrahim who he claimed is a senior agent/staff/supervisor of the Defendant. That the Claimant was hospitalised for several days and underwent several medical treatments as a result of the injury he suffered resulting from the aforesaid multiple slaps. That as a result of the injury he suffered, he wrote a letter of demand for compensation dated 7th March, 2019 to the Defendant but the Defendant did not honour the demands contained in the letter, which makes the Claimant to seek redress in Court.

 

The Defendant however contended that the Claimant is not its employee and that there was no expartriate by name Mr. Ibrahim in its employment. The Defendant also stated that the only thing that makes the Claimant to have access to its factory is because the Claimant used to work with one of its independent contractors. It was also the contention of the Defendant that it is not aware of the assault allegedly committed in its factory on the 4th day of March, 2019 on the Claimant.

 

From the evidence adduced by the parties and the submissions of counsel in their Final Written Addresses, the issue of whether there was an employment relationship between the Claimant and defendant is imperative.

 

In paragraph 4 of the statement on oath, the Defendant denied employing the Claimant and that the only reason why the claimant was allowed into the premises of the Defendant is that he used to work for one of the Defendant’s independent contractors.

 

Learned counsel to the Defendant argued that there was no employment relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant, consequently, this suit is not a labour matter and this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the matter. In his response, counsel to the Claimant argued that the suit is founded on claims for injury that occurred to the Claimant at workplace where he was working for the Defendant and the Defendant which only acts through human beings caused the injury to the Claimant, and this can only be well ventilated at nowhere than the National Industrial Court of Nigeria.

 

Now, the Claimant in this case bears the burden to prove that he was employed by the Defendant.The burden of proof on the Claimant to prove his employment by the Defendant becomes crucial to the success of his claims in view of the Defendant’s denial of any employment relationship with the Claimant. It did not stop there. The proof of such employment relationship is also an important factor in the determination of the Court's jurisdiction to determine the cause of action of the Claimant against the Defendant.

 

In the Claimant's evidence, he testified that the he was employed to work in the Department of Furnace and Rolling Mills and in the Department of Loaders since his employment until his injury. That his salary per day was ?950 and that he worked everyday.

 

The Claimant did not plead or tender any employment letter in evidence. It appears that the Claimant did not apply for employment with the Defendant hence the absence of any employment letter either.

 

Other than the Claimant’s averment that he was engaged by the Defendant, he did not show any evidence to establish his allegation that the Defendant employed him, let alone tender the conditions of the employment. The claimant stated that he was paid ?950 per day, but he did not show any evidence of payment of the alleged salary/stipend to him at any time. The case of the Claimant appears to be full of hitches as to his employment relationship with the Defendant.

 

In want of anything to show he was employed by the Defendant, the Claimant resorted to hospital card of the Defendant’s retainership hospital (Rolayo Hospital), his solicitor’s letter dated 7th March, 2019 and his Attorney’s Fees.

 

There is nothing in the said Exhibits suggesting that the Defendant employed the Claimant. That the claimant’s name appearing on the Defendant’s retainership hospital does not imply that an employment relationship exists between the parties. These Exhibits are not the Claimant’s employment documents and they do not contain any information on which the Claimant can rely on to prove his case against the Defendant.

 

Claimant also averred that he was hospitalised for several weeks at the expense of the Defendant, but there was no receipt of any payment made by the Defendant of any medical bill on behalf of the Claimant. He also said that he cannot remember the names of the other two hospitals he was treated because he fainted after the slaps.

 

It is only when the facts of employment relationship have been established and ascertained, that the court can examine the claims of the Claimant. Perhaps, if facts were not made available pointing to events or circumstances leading to the the existence of such a relationship, the courts may have viewed things differently. Unfortunately, no facts are made available either pointing to the Claimant's regular schedule of duties or his day to day payment of the said amount as alleged by the Claimant. The burden of proof in this respect is on the Claimant. No such evidence has been adduced before this Court.

 

It is always the law that averments contained in pleadings with out credible evidence in support go to no issue. See Omisore V. Aregbesola (2015) LPELR-24803(SC).

 

Claimant contended that the Defendant is a registered company which carries out its works through its management team which comprises of Mr. Ibrahim. Therefore, all decisions or acts done by the company through its senior or management staff are done by the company itself and the company is bound to be held vicariously liable for such acts. In other words, the Claimant holds the Defendant vicariously liable for the act of its agent.

 

It is manifest from the Claimant’s pleadings that the agent is the principal tortfeasor. Besides the fact that his name was mentioned by the Claimant, but he did not deem it necessary to join him in his suit as a defendant in his claim. In a case of this nature where the Claimant seeks to hold the Defendant vicariously liable for the alleged tort of another person, the claim cannot be determined without the presence of the alleged principal tortfeasor in the case as a Defendant. In Iyere V. Bendel Feeds and Flour Mills Ltd (2001) FWLR (Pt.37) 1166 AT 1178, it was held thus: “it is trite law that if a party claiming for negligence in Court against a natural or juristic person and a servant of that natural or juristic person is the principal tortfeasor, the servant must be joined because the vicarious liability of the master is predicated or consequent upon that of the servant”.

 

Also in Chukwu V. Solel Boneh (Nig)Ltd (1993) 3 NWLR PT. 280) 246 AT 251, it was held: “In an action for negligence, if the principal actor, the offending servant is not joined as a party so that the liability may be established, the question of finding the master vicariously liable can never arise. Consequently, once a servant is not joined in the action, the action is incompetent ab initio and a trial Court should not waste time going into the merits of the case”.

 

As it is in this case, the vicarious liability or otherwise of the Defendant for the Claimant’s injury can be considered only when the agent of the Defendant who is alleged to have committed the assault is joined to this action and his liability, first established. I cannot determine the liability of the defendant for the Claimant’s claims when its agent who was allegedly the one who caused the Claimant’s injury is not a party to the suit. I think it is proper for the agent of the defendant who is accused of assault to be found liable first before the Defendant can be held vicariously liable for the act of his agent. This can only be done if the agent is sued together with his employer. The Claimant has not only failed to join the principal tortfeasor in this suit, but also failed to link the act of the alleged agent to the principal. This therefore appears to be fatal to the Claimant's case which failure renders his case incompetent. See Chukwu V. Solel Boneh (Nig) Ltd (supra).

 

In addition to the failure of the Claimant to establish an employment relationship between him and the Defendant, he also failed to join the alleged agent/supervisor to this suit.The Claimant's case is not only incompetent before this Court but it is a case that is not properly constituted for this court to determine. It is now clear that there is no cause of action against the Defendant eventhough the alleged act constituting the claimant's claim arose from the Defendant's work place.

 

For what it is, for a Claimant to succeed in a case rooted in negligence, he must prove by cogent and credible evidence that the Defendant owed a duty of care to him, that the duty of care was breached and that he suffered damages arising from such breach.

 

Whether the Defendant in this case owes a duty of care to the Claimant? The answer is No, as there is no contractual employment relationship established between the Claimant and the Defendant that confers on the claimant the right to hold the Defendant liable for duty of care.

 

A duty of care is said to arise when two persons are so closely and directly related that the activities of one of them may involve an appreciable risk of injury to the other and such a close and direct relationship exists between an employer and his employee and thus an employer owes a duty of care to the employee. See Donoghue V. Stevenson (supra).

 

As there is no duty of care, so also there is no question of a breach of the duty of care and in view of lack of credible evidence to prove the allegation of injury and the extent of the injury, I find that the Claimant fails to prove negligence against the Defendant.

 

The Defendant can only be found to have breached a duty of care if that duty existed in the first place, and having the Court found that there was no duty of care to the Claimant, then, the question of the breach becomes irrelevant.

 

In the circumstance of this case, it is my view that the proper order to make is to dismiss this case not only for lack of reasonable cause of action, but for lack of proof to establish negligence against the Defendant.

 

Accordingly, Claimant's case fails and is hereby dismissed.

 

Judgment is entered accordingly with no order as to cost.

 

 

 

..............................................................

HON. JUSTICE S. H. DANJIDDA

(PRESIDING JUDGE)