Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS

 

DATE: 5TH MAY 2026                                               

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/50/2023

 

BETWEEN

Mr. Akinbiyi Alalade                                                      -                              Claimant        

AND

1. Mr. Ben Odukwe

(The Chief Executive Officer of Ponti & Co. Italware Ltd)            

2. Ponti & Co. Italware Ltd                                                  -                   Defendants

REPRESENTATION 

M. A. Akinwumi with O. I. Agbaje for the Claimant

E. M. Adebajo for the Defendants

 

 

JUDGMENT

1.         Introduction & Claims

1.         The Claimant approached this Court on 7/9/2023 via his General Form of Compliant along with statement facts, witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial and sought the following reliefs against the Defendants –

  1. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=2,039,434.27 (Two Million, Thirty-Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Four Naira, Twenty-Seven Kobo) being the severance benefits of the Claimant after disengagement from service by the Defendants.
  2. 10% post Judgment interest until final liquidation of the sum.
  3. Cost of the suit.

2.         The Defendants entered an appearance to the suit on 9/2/2024 and filed a joint statement of defence along with witness deposition and list of witnesses.

 

2.         Case of the Claimant

3.         Trial commenced on 19/3/2025 when the Claimant opened his case and testified in chief as CW1. Witness adopted his witness depositions of 7/9/2023 and 16/12/2024 as his evidence in chief and tendered 9 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. AA1-Exh. AA9. On the same day and while being cross examined, CW1 testified that he was employed by the 2nd Defendant in 2015; that he does not have a contract of employment with the 2nd Defendant and that the 1st Defendant bought the 2nd Defendant with all the staff of the 2nd Defendant.

 

3.         Case of the Defendants

4.         On 18/6/2025, the Defendants entered their defence and the 1st Defendant testified as DW1. Witness simply adopted his witness deposition of 9/2/2024 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document as exhibit. 

 

5.         While under cross examination, witness stated that Madam Temi Oladejo is the HR Manager of the 2nd Defendant; that 2nd Defendant did not take over Metal Company; that he employed Claimant in May/June 2015; that he bought 95% of the 2nd Defendant in March 2015; that Claimant was not a staff of the 2nd Defendant as at the time of purchase of shares; that employment of the Claimant was terminated during the redundancy of 2019; that 2nd Defendant does not pay pension to any of its ex-staff; that 2nd Defendant always remitted pension deductions including employer’s contribution to the PFA of the employees; that Claimant was not given any severance benefit at the time of his disengagement because there was a pending investigation against the Claimant at the time he left. Witness added that he did not indicate in his evidence in chief that the Claimant was fraudulent or that he had investigation pending against him and that Claimant has not received his severance benefit because of the alleged extortion of the Vendor who took the 2nd Defendant to Court and secondly the Claimant instituted this case in this Court.

4.         Final Written Addresses

6.         At the conclusion of trial and pursuant to the directive of the Court for the parties to file their final written addresses, the Defendants filed a 7-page joint written address on 29/9/2025. In it, learned Counsel to the Defendants set down 2 issues for determination thus –

  1. Whether there exists a valid employment relationship between the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant from 2002 to 2014 as claimed by the 1st Defendant(sic). 
  2. Whether Mr. Alalade has provided sufficient evidence to prove his employment with Ponti Co Limited from 2002 to 2014.

7.         On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the Court is entitled to look at its record and make findings thereof citing Texaco (Nig.) Plc v. Laloko (1997)6 NWLR (Pt. 510) 651 at 663; that Claimant did not provide any evidence to back his assertion that he had been in the employment of the 2nd Defendant since 1st day of November 2002; that rather he testified under cross examination that he was employed in 2015 by the Defendants; that assertions without evidence are insufficient to establish a fact citing Nwafor v. Ecobank (Nig.) Ltd & Anor (2024) LPELR-61814(CA); that 1st Defendant also testifie d under cross examination that he employed the Claimant in 2015 which fact was also admitted by the Claimant; that both the Claimant and the Defendants agreed that Claimant was employed by the Defendants in 2015; that facts admitted need no further proof and that there is contradiction in the evidence of the Claimant as to when he was employed by the Defendants. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Defendants and hold that there is no evidence of a valid employment relationship between the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant from 2002 to 2014.  

 

8.         On the second issue, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant agreed with the 1st Defendant under cross examination that he was employed in 2015; that paragraphs 1 and 4 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 2 and 5 of the statement on oaths of the Claimant are deemed abandoned because the Claimant did not lead evidence in their support citing Ilodibia v. Nigerian Cement Company Limited (1997) LPELR-1494(SC); that Claimant also averred that Metalco Nigeria Limited purchased the shares of Ponti and co but did not lead evidence in support of the assertion; that it is trite that pleadings must be supported by evidence citing Section 133(1), Evidence Act & Omotosho & Anor. v. Akinremi & Ors (2019) LPELR-1436(SC) and that Claimant cannot claim severance benefit for a job he never did as he was not employed by the Defendants between 2002 and 2014. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve all the issues in favor of the Defendants and against the Claimant. 

 

9.         On 10/11/2025, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a 6-page final written address. It was dated same date. Counsel reproduced the 2 issues set down for determination by the Defendants as follows –

  1. Whether there exists a valid employment relationship between the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant from 2002 to 2012 as claimed 1st Defendant(sic).
  2. Whether Mr. Alalade has provided sufficient evidence to prove his employment with Ponti and Co Limited from 2002 to 2014.

10.       Learned Counsel argued these issues together. In doing so, Counsel submitted that a person who acquires the share of another company acquires both the assets and liabilities of the company; that in the instant case the 2nd Defendant having acquired the shares of Metalco Nigeria Limited acquired both assets and liabilities and that the fact that 2nd Defendant took over Metalco Nigeria Limited and inherited the Claimant has not been rebutted or denied in any form. Counsel cited Nigerian Stored Products Research Institute v. Board of Internal Revenue, Kwara State (2014)15 WRN 81 (CA).

 

11.       Learned Counsel further submitted that all that the Defendants were doing was to deny the Claimant his severance benefit even though conceded that Claimant had not been paid entitlement; that the evidence in this respect under cross examination is admissible as against the Defendants citing Mohammed v. F.T Bulbul & Co (Nig.) Ltd & Ors (2024)LPELR-73323(CA). Counsel urged the Court to hold that in face of admission by the Defendants that Claimant had not been paid his entitlement, the Claimant has nothing to prove other than for the Defendants to him his severance benefits since facts admitted need no further proof citing Haruna v. Uniagric, Makurdi (2005)3 NWLR (Pt. 339). Learned Counsel prayed the Court to hold that Claimant has proved his case and thus grant all the prayers sought against the Defendants.

 

5.         Decision

12.       The case of the Claimant is that he worked for the Defendants and got disengaged. The present action is not for wrongful disengagement. Rather it is for disengagement benefit. I have read all the processes filed by the parties on either side. I listened patiently to the testimonies of the witnesses called by both sides, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. I also heard the submissions of the learned Counsel for the parties at the point of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I set down a lone issue for the just determination of this case thus –

 

Whether the Claimant has led sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of his claims to be entitled to same.

 

13.       The state of the law remains the same that whoever approaches the Court for positive intervention and Judgment in his favour must adduce sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of same. The evidence required may be oral or documentary or even both. Credence is, however, often ascribed to documentary evidence and it is trite always that once admitted oral evidence will not be allowed to vary or add to the contents of a document. Both the case law as well as the statute are in support. The first relief sought by the Claimant is for an Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=2,039,434.27 (Two Million, Thirty-Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-Four Naira, Twenty-Seven Kobo) being the severance benefits of the Claimant after disengagement from service by the Defendants. This claim is akin to a claim for special damages. It is for a sum certain. The law mandates that it be pleaded and strictly proved. In the case of J.O. Imana v. Robinson (1979) 1 All NLR 1 at 16 in relation to proof of special damages the Supreme Court per Aniagolu, JSC said - 

 

“The term 'strict proof' required in proof of special damages means no more than that the evidence must show the same particularity as it is necessary for its pleading. It should therefore normally consist of evidence of particular losses which are exactly known or accurately measured before the trial. Strict proof does not mean unusual proof, as the play of the appellant's counsel on those words tendered to suggest, but simply implies that a plaintiff who has the advantage of being able to base his claim upon a precise calculation must give the defendant access to the facts which make such calculation possible".

 

14.       It is therefore incumbent on the Claimant in proving this head of claim to not only provide the basis of the figure claimed but also the basis of and foundation upon which the figure claimed rests.

 

15.       In proof of his case, Claimant tendered 9 Exhibits. Exh. AA1, AA2, AA4, AA5 & Exh. AA7 are mere correspondences between the parties. Exh. AA6 are copies of Claimant’s pay slips. Exh. AA8 is evidence of Claimant’s Bank statement of account while Exh. AA9 is Claimant’s Retirement Savings Account Statement. Claimant pays premium reliance on Exh. AA3. That exhibit is dated 7th November 2019. It bears a signature, but no name of the author is reflected on it. It was alleged to have been made by the Human Resources Manager of the 2nd Defendant. The exhibit carries the name of the 2nd Defendant. It has 2 headings. The first is Annual Payment for Akin Alalade in the sum of =N=559,024. 30 while the second is Severance Benefit with the sum of =N=2,039,434.27. The latter is the sum claimed by the Claimant as his disengagement benefit. The author of that exhibit was not called to testify on it. No reason was offered as to why the author was not called to testify to it. The Claimant who tendered same was not the author. He, indeed, did not claim to be the author. He could not be cross examined on it at trial. At best Exh. AA3 fits into the category of a documentary hearsay. In Mothercat (Nig) Ltd & Anor v. Akpan (2019) LPELR-47158(CA) Ogbuinya, J.C.A while faced a similar situation as the instant case said - 

 

"Incontestably, a document must be tendered by its maker or else it will be declared a documentary hearsay. Undeniably, the respondent, who tendered the medical report, was not the author of it howsoever. In this wise, he was not in a position to be cross-examined on it. The lower Court, with due respect, desecrated the law when it placed reliance on medical report, exhibit 7, in evidence as it is devoid of any probative value." 

 

16.       The exhibit itself was not addressed to anybody. Not even was it addressed to the Claimant. How did the Claimant come to be in custody of the exhibit? Who issued the exhibit to him? What purpose was the exhibit meant to serve? These are some pertinent questions to which answers are needed if Exh. AA3 is to be of any assistance to the case of the Claimant.

 

17.       Certainly, issues of entitlement of employees, especially disengagement or severance benefits, are usually well documented. Issues of this nature are either contained in contract of employment, letters of employment or Staff Handbook (if any). It is not clear to me how the author of Exh. AA3 arrived at those figures on it. It is also confusing the basis of same. Exh. AA3 is not a reliable piece of evidence upon which this Court can or should place reliance to find in favor of the Claimant. This head of claim is not proved as required by law. It is accordingly refused and dismissed.

 

18.       The second and third reliefs are for 10% post Judgment interest until final liquidation of the sum and Cost of the suit. The success of these reliefs are predicated on the success of the first. Thus, the first relief sought having been refused and dismissed, the remaining reliefs are destined to fail also. Accordingly, I dismiss same.  

6.         Conclusion

19.       Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety.

 

20.       I make no order as to cost.

 

21.       Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

 

 

___________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge