Color

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT JOS

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE I.S. GALADIMA

 

DATE:3rd February 2025                                        SUIT NO: NICN/JOS/12/2022

 

BETWEEN:

 

1.     JOSEPH A. AKUPO

2.     JOSEPH DANIEL

3.     PATRICK PAM

4.     JOHN ARANDONG

5.     AGBO OMORI

6.     LADI MARKUS

7.     SAMUEL HARUNA

8.     SILVANUS TITUS

9.     CHOLLOM DUSU

10. JACOB DIGA

11. ANDREW DAJONG

12. ISAIAH EDO

13. EDWARD AGBEBWEI

14. EMMANUEL IJACHI

15. MICHAEL EKERE

16. DANJUMA NUNGDON

17. DANLADI ABAH

18. STEVE NYANG

19. JOSEPH KURMI

20. NELSON DANIEL

21. HOSEA SEWEN

22. SATI DESHI                                                                         CLAIMANTS

23. DANIEL AKUT

24. JULIE BILLE

25. FRANCIS S. DUNG

26. PETER TOM

27. KASHIM ANDREW GOFWEN

28. JAMES ADAMS

29. JOHN GYANG

30. DAVID OBINIMI

31. SALEH LOKO

32. BULUS BWANS

33. MARGARET

34. LINUS GOKYAL

35. MANUA TANGNI

36. JOSHUA MSHELIA

37. AUDU RABO

38. BONKW DAVID (FOR LATE MWANTEP DAVOU)

39. SARAH GANDU (FOR LATE ANDREW GANDU)

40. DANIEL MISE (FOR LATE JOHN MISE)

41. BENJAMIN UDURA YUNANA (FOR LATE YUNANA DANIEL)

42. CHARITY DAVID CHOJI (FOR LATE DAVID CHOJI)

43. GRACE NAKOTO (FOR LATE USAINI NAKOTO)

44. JESSICA DAMAP (FOR LATE GIDEON DAMAP)

 

AND

 

HILL STATION HOTEL LIMITED                                                        DEFENDANT

 

REPRESENTATION:

·        J.A. Adokwu; Pedi W. Dusu for the claimants.

·        S.L. Albarka for the defendant.

 

 

JUDGMENT:

1.                 This is a defended suit against the claimants’ writ of claims that was filed on 28/3/2022 for the following reliefs:

                                                              i.      For an order declaring that the wilful refusal of the defendant in computing and paying the final entitlements of the claimants since 2016 to date is wicked, inexcusable, callous, and immoral contrary to both junior and senior staff rules, regulations, and conditions of service of the defendant thus illegal, oppressive, and unconstitutional.

                                                           ii.      An order of court directing the defendant to forthwith compute the current prevailing final entitlements/benefits of the claimants from 2016 to date for onward payment.

                                                         iii.      A consequential order directing the defendant to forthwith pay the claimants’ final entitlements from 2016 to date through the law firm of their solicitors, James Attah Adokwu & Co., 42/40 Rwang Pam Street, Jos, Plateau State.

                                                         iv.      An order of this court directing the defendant to pay 10% interest monthly on the computed judgment sum till the same is liquidated.

                                                            v.      Order directing the defendant to pay the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only as exemplary damages for the inconvenience, hardship, and pains occasioned on the claimants due to its unlawful act.

                                                         vi.      Cost of this suit.

2.                 The claims are based on the details provided in the statement of facts submitted on 28/3/2022. In this document, the claimants mention that they are all retirees from the defendant hotel, having previously served as either senior or junior staff members.

3.                 The defendant is a limited liability company established as far back as 1938 and one of the premier hotels in Nigeria situate in Jos under this court’s jurisdiction.

4.                 The defendant had guaranteed the claimants, regardless of their positions as senior or junior employees, access to social security, insurance, death benefits, retirement, gratuity, and redundancy benefits as outlined in the company's staff rules, regulations, and conditions of service.

5.                 The claimants assert that despite being employed at various times and holding different roles within the defendant company before their collective retirements, they are each entitled to the final retirement benefits as specified in the letters they received from the defendant.

6.                 It is claimed that they are a group of retirees from 2016 to 2020, and since their retirement, they have not yet received their benefits from the defendant.

7.                 This situation persists even after numerous appeals and demands made to the defendant, who the claimants believe has either refused or neglected to calculate and settle their payments up to now.

8.                 Despite numerous appeals, such as the letter dated 15/11/2019 submitted to the defendant via its project manager, the defendant has consistently declined to comply with their requests for payment of their retirement benefits.

9.                 The defendant's project manager responded to their letter dated 15/11/2019, with a reply on 25/11/2019, requesting patience from the claimants so that the defendant could calculate and settle their payments appropriately.

10.             Despite the defendant's failure to make payments, the claimants collectively reached out to the State Governor for assistance through a letter dated 27/7/2020. In this letter, they also highlighted a national newspaper publication that claimed an amount of 250 million Naira had been invested in the defendant hotel to revive its financial state.

11.             The claimants note that the 39th to the 45th claimants passed away while attempting to secure their benefits from the defendant. They express regret over their financial hardships, which directly result from the defendant's failure to meet its obligations to them.

12.             This led the claimants to issue a pre-action letter to the defendant and ultimately initiate this legal action due to the defendant's failure to reply to them.

13.             They request the court, among other things, to instruct the defendant to calculate their respective entitlements, as failing to do so is unjustifiable, heartless, objectionable, and against the defendant's staff rules and regulations.

14.             The claimants also filed 2 sworn depositions made by the 1st and 14th claimants and tendered a host of documents as their exhibits for sustaining this suit.

15.             On 6/5/2022, the defendant caused a memorandum of appearance to be filed on its behalf with the leave of this court. Additionally, it filed a statement of defence and other accompanying processes on the same date.

16.             Interestingly, the defendant did not dispute the claims made by the claimants, attributing its failure to pay to its substantial financial difficulties, amounting to billions, at the time the suit was filed. This financial strain resulted in the hotel's closure and the hiring of professionals to calculate the entitlements owed to the claimants, all of whom are retirees from the defendant company.

17.             The defendant also relies on a financial statement prepared by a consulting accounting firm, which was submitted to them in February 2022, despite being dated March 24, 2021. This document was presented as Exhibit A, attached to the statement of defence. It purportedly includes a detailed breakdown of the claimants' entitlements, with a total amounting to N89,036,783.00.

18.             Paragraph 18 of the defence statement summarizes the defendant's position, stating that the court should recognize the attached entitlement documents as accurately reflecting what each claimant is entitled to. It further asserts that the 43rd claimant’s late husband, being a contract staff, is only eligible to 10% of the total emolument for each year of service from 15/6/2007 until his retirement. Additionally, the defendant argues that relief (e) of the claim should be denied because the nonpayment of entitlements was not intentional and does not justify an award as punishment.

19.             In response to the defendant's defence, the claimants submitted a reply on 19/5/2022, asserting that the defendant's exhibit A is a ploy and a deliberate effort to diminish their terminal benefits. They pointed out that the accounting report by Chris Agbo & Co. was created in 2021, while the claimants retired in 2016, and therefore, they should not be impacted by the review that was suspiciously conducted on 24/3/2021 after the claimants had retired.

20.             Their doubts are heightened by the omission of Joseph A. Akupo's name (the 1st claimant) from the entire document, which makes the document unreliable.

21.             They assert that at trial, they would urge the court to rely on the previous formular used in calculating the claimants’ benefits and to discard the report by the accounting firm of Chris Agbo & Co. tendered by the defendant.

22.             The claimants deny that the report is a true reflection of the claimants’ benefits and that the purported calculations are inaccurate.

23.             They made several other denials of the statements made in defence to their suit which for the most part are not relevant to the determination of the case before this court. Besides, no further evidence were adduced in the testimony heard from their witnesses in open court as a result of which this court deems those facts to have been abandoned by the claimants.

24.             Due to the change in the composition of this court following the previous judge's elevation to the Court of Appeal and my reassignment to the Jos Division in November 2023, the parties' counsel decided to continue the proceedings from where they were left off with the former judge. With the court's permission, they prepared the Certified True Copy (CTC) of the proceedings conducted by Justice P.A. Bassi from 11/5/2022, to 12/1/2023. These proceedings were adopted by the respective counsel in open court on 11/12/2024, and the court allowed them the option to cross-examine their witnesses.

25.             Since their final written addresses had already been submitted before the previous judge's elevation, the court scheduled the case for 3/2/2025, to adopt these final addresses. By that time, the court would have had sufficient opportunity to review all the pleadings to make an informed decision based on the presented facts and evidence.

Evaluation of the evidence before the court:

26.             During the trial, the claimants presented two witnesses. On 7/6/2022, they introduced their first witness, Emmanuel Ijachi, who affirmed his written testimony under oath and was thoroughly cross-examined by the defendant's counsel. He submitted nine exhibits, which were accepted as exhibits C1 to C9.

27.             CW 2 is Joseph Akupo. He too affirmed his written testimony under oath whereupon he was duly cross examined by the defendant’s counsel. He tendered a total of 28 exhibits which were admitted in evidence and marked exhibits C10 to C37. Therefore, the claimants tendered a total of 37 exhibits.

28.             Both CW1 and CW2 testified under cross examination that they had reviewed the report prepared by the chartered accountant appointed by the defendant and disagreed with the assertion that it adhered to the conditions of service applicable to either the junior or senior staff involved in this case. Thereafter, the claimants closed their case.

29.             On 25/10/2022, the defendant began its case with testimony from a single witness (see pages 6 and 7 of the CTC of record of proceedings). According to the certified true copy of the proceedings, which both parties' counsel adopted, Yakubu Dagan Bishvwan, the defendant's HR Manager, confirmed his written testimony under oath, originally prepared on 6/5/22. He presented 15 documents, labelled as D1 to D15. He also recognised the 2 separate conditions of service for the staff of the defendant hotel which were previously also tendered by the claimants. Following this, the claimants' counsel cross-examined him, after which the defendant's counsel concluded the case for the defendant.

30.             During cross-examination of DW1, the witness denied being privy to the contents of exhibit D3, a document created by an accounting firm on the defendant's behalf that supposedly outlines all the claimants' claims for payment.

31.             Upon the conclusion of trial, the court had on 25/10/2022, ordered the parties’ counsel to file their final written submissions and addresses. The defendant's lawyer submitted their final written address on 14/11/2022, while the claimants' lawyer submitted theirs on 9/1/2023 though out of time but with the leave of court. My predecessor had initially adjourned the case to 10/2/2023 for adoption of final addresses before his elevation to the Court of Appeal. These final addresses were finally adopted today, 3/2/2025 whereupon this court immediately delivered this judgment.

32.             I have thoroughly examined and considered the issues presented in these written addresses, though I will not repeat them verbatim in this judgment. However, I will reference specific parts of the addresses to help reach the appropriate decision.

DECISION:

33.             This judgment addresses the claims made by retirees from Hill Station Hotel Limited, who are seeking remedies due to the defendant's alleged failure to calculate and pay their final entitlements after their retirement between 2016 and 2020. The claimants contend that the defendant's behaviour is unjust, unethical, and violates the company's staff rules and regulations. Conversely, the defendant, while acknowledging its debt to the claimants, relies on a document prepared by an accounting firm it appointed to represent the total liability owed to the claimants, countering the claimants' higher assertions.

34.             In the defendant’s counsel’s final written address and submissions, the following issues were raised for determination thus:

                                                              i.      Whether the final entitlement of the claimants is determined by the junior and senior staff rules, regulations, and conditions of service which governed their employment?

                                                           ii.      If the answer to issue (i) is in the affirmative, whether exhibit D3 is a correct interpretation of the junior and senior staff rules, regulations, and conditions of service as to computation of entitlement?

                                                         iii.      If the answer to issue (ii) is in the affirmative, did the claimants prove their case by credible evidence to entitle them to the declaration, orders, and general damages claimed in this suit?

35.             The claimants’ counsel on the other hand, framed the following issues for determination thus:

                                                              i.      Whether the claimants has (sic) been able to establish their employer/employee relationship with the defendant vide their retirements on the balance of probabilities to be entitle (sic) to judgment per their reliefs before this honourable court – see page 4 of the claimants’ counsel’s final written address.

                                                           ii.      If the answer to issue (i) is in the positive, whether the defendant is permitted to go outside exhibits C1 and C2 which is the same as exhibits D1 and D2 before the court let alone to engaging a private chartered accountants (sic) who manufactured exhibit D3 before the court.

36.             Condensed from these issues, this court isolates a sole issue which is whether from the facts and evidence adduced before this court, the claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought. But based on the issues raised above by both counsel, this court is bound to answer the following questions, thus:

1.     Are the claimants entitled to the full computation and payment of their retirement benefits according to the company's staff rules?

2.     Is the defendant's refusal or delay in paying the claimants' entitlements justified by the hotel's financial difficulties and closure?

3.     Is the financial statement submitted by the defendant accurate, and does it reflect the true entitlements owed to the claimants?

4.     Should the claimants receive exemplary damages for the hardships caused by the non-payment of their entitlements?

5.     Is the defendant liable to pay interest on the outstanding amounts from the date of the claimants' retirement until the payment is made?

6.     Should the defendant bear the costs of the suit due to their actions or inactions regarding the payment of the claimants' entitlements?

37.             These questions would guide the court in making its determinations and issuing the appropriate orders in the judgment.

38.             Therefore, respecting the 1st question, the defendant and the claimants’ counsel both agree that the answer to this question must be in the affirmative. They state that the parties must be allowed to be bound by their own contracts and even the court cannot re-write the terms of a contract between parties.

39.             The counsel for both parties acknowledge that the claimants' appointment letters, along with the rules, regulations, and conditions of service for junior and senior staff, submitted and accepted by this court as exhibits C1 and C2 (which correspond to exhibits D1 and D2), are the documents outlining all the entitlements an employee of the defendant is eligible for.

40.             It is notable that the claimants did not provide a detailed breakdown of what they believe their entitlements are, based on the contracts and conditions of service they signed with the defendant. They also failed to present any formula for calculating the amounts they claim are due to them. This omission has left the court unable to clearly understand their perspective on the exact sum owed by the defendant. I refer to various parts of their witnesses’ statements under oath, as well as that included in their reply to the defendant’s statement of defence. In fact, the claimants’ counsel only mentions a formula in his final address, where he requested on page 3 that – “whereof the claimants by their further rely (sic) on 19/5/2022, is asking the court to award the previous formula that was in existence and still in existence since 2016 to date in line with the conditions of both junior and senior staffs (sic) condition (sic) of service of the defendant (sic) exhibits C1 and C2 of the claimants and exhibits D1 and D2 of the defendant respectively” suggesting that the court should apply the existing and ongoing formula since 2016, in accordance with the conditions of service for both junior and senior staff, as shown in claimants' exhibits C1 and C2 and defendant's exhibits D1 and D2.

41.             It is essential to emphasize that a lawyer’s closing argument, regardless of how eloquently delivered, cannot substitute for oral evidence. In any legal proceeding, arguments by counsel cannot replace the necessity for solid evidence – SMOOTH V. SMOOTH (2015) JELR 40427 (CA).

42.             It is also worth noting that the documents presented by the claimants' counsel through their witnesses have not demonstrated the connection necessary to determine the benefits the claimants should receive. If these documents do contain such information, the claimants' counsel has not highlighted them, which would ordinarily have facilitated the court's task in determining what the defendant owes them.

43.             A court of law is not an enchanted place where solutions can be conjured up simply by someone asking for them.

44.             It is a fundamental principle that parties are bound by their pleadings. Among the 6 reliefs initially requested by the claimants, none asks this court to adopt a calculation of the claimants’ entitlements derived from any formula clearly outlined in their terms of service or any binding rules and regulations. In fact, relief B specifically seeks an order of court directing the defendant[s] to promptly compute the current prevailing final entitlements/benefits of the claimants from 2016 to present for subsequent payment.

45.             “An order of court directing the defendant[s] to forthwith compute the current prevailing final entitlements/benefits of the claimants from 2016 to date for onward payment”, would suggest that the claimants are willing to accept the calculations that the defendant makes as long as it is based on an acceptable formula. It is, however, this formula that is difficult for the court to determine based on what the claimants have presented.  

46.             A claim for unpaid benefits is a unique type of claim that must be explicitly substantiated by the claimant. Even if it seems to be acknowledged, the claimant is still obligated to prove it with convincing and substantial evidence, as demonstrated in the case of PETER ENEMONA ADEJO V. ARKSEGO NIG Ltd. (2020) JELR 80455 (NICN) PER SANUSI KADO, J.

47.             According to what has been presented to this court, exhibits C1 and C2 – similar to exhibits D1 and D2, are the Hill Station Hotel Limited Senior Staff Rules, Regulations, and Conditions of Service, and the Hill Station Hotel Limited Junior Staff Rules, Regulations, and Conditions of Service respectively. Section VIII of the senior staff regulations provides for 1) social security, 2) group account insurance scheme 3) death benefit 4) retirement, 5) gratuity, and 6) redundancy benefits.

48.             The testimony of CW1, Emmanuel Ijachi, was purportedly given on behalf of the claimants who held senior staff positions prior to their retirement between 2016 and 2020. He asserted that they were entitled to receive their benefits as outlined in the senior staff rulebook, which specifies their entitlements. In his additional sworn statement filed on 19/5/2022, he claimed that the defendant hired the accounting firm in 2021, after their retirements since 2016, as a deceptive move aimed at reducing their terminal benefits. He further alleged that this was an attempt to defraud the claimants, as some of their names were either completely omitted from the report or inaccurately categorized as senior staff instead of junior staff, thereby affecting the amounts they were supposed to receive.

49.             The witness was unable to present any alternative figures that the court could use to determine what the claimants should be entitled to according to the defendant’s rulebook or regulations for senior staff.

50.             In the junior staff regulations, gratuity is covered on page 8, retirement on page 17, and the contributory pension scheme on page 20. In the sworn statement by CW2, Joseph A. Akupo, he did not explicitly refer to these provisions. He only mentioned his entitlement to retirement benefits, as well as those of his fellow claimants, in line with the defendant’s regulations for junior staff, which are detailed in the rulebook. Although he mentioned retiring in 2018 after 35 years of service, he did not confirm reaching the compulsory retirement age of 60, as stated in the rulebook. It is crucial to highlight this because the junior staff rulebook (exhibit C2 or D2) specifies that compulsory retirement occurs at age 60. Regarding voluntary retirement, it states that an employee may retire after reaching 45 years of age and having completed at least 10 years of continuous service with the employer. An employee opting for early retirement must give a 3-month notice or forfeit 3 months' salary instead.

51.             The court cannot speculate on why CW2’s name is allegedly missing from the document (exhibit D3) submitted by the defendant. The court is aware of the claimants’ counsel’s argument that the absence of CW2’s name, along with the incorrect designation of the 31st claimant (Sale Loko) as a senior staff rather than a junior staff, renders the document unreliable.

52.             Meanwhile, in the defendant's defence statement, the 1st claimant, who is also CW2 in this case, is listed under paragraph 10 with an amount of N2,299,398.00 payable to him. Similarly, the 31st claimant is listed with an amount of N2,810,742.00.

53.             Again, the claimants did not provide any comparative figures to counter those presented by the defendant.

54.             DW1, a witness for the defendant, mentioned that although he did not create exhibit D3, he is aware, in his role as the HR Manager, that the document includes all the entitlements specified for each claimant. He also noted that the consulting firm Chris Agbo & Co was compensated for their work and had delivered their report on 24/3/2021, which provided a detailed calculation of all amounts owed to the claimants.

55.             During the trial before my predecessor, the claimants attempted to introduce a specific exhibit through DW1 under cross examination. This was a letter from the National Union of Hotels and Personnel Service Workers (NUHPSW), which the defendant’s counsel objected to being admitted as an exhibit. The claimants’ counsel, who referenced this document in his introductory statement in paragraph 1.02 of his final written arguments, proceeded to argue on pages 10 to 11 that the document was relevant and legally admissible, citing sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Evidence Act 2011, along with cases such as ADEYEFA V BAMGBOYE (2013) 10 NWLR (PT.1363) SC 532. However, the defendant contended that the claimants never formally included the document in their pleadings.

56.             In civil actions, it is not necessary to specifically plead every document a claimant intends to rely on. Once the material fact that the document evidences is pleaded, the document itself does not need to be pleaded separately – see ASMAN MAN. AND MECH. COY. Ltd. V. SPRING BANK PLC (2001) JELR 52704 (CA).

57.             Thus said, the objection to the admissibility of the letter tendered as exhibit 1 through DW1, is hereby overruled.

58.             The primary point of dispute between the parties appears to be exhibit D3, the report prepared by the accounting firm, Messrs Chris Agbo & Co. The claimants are urging the court to reject this evidence, arguing it was not created in compliance with the rulebooks governing both senior and junior staff at the defendant hotel. In contrast, the defendant is requesting the court to accept the report, asserting that it accurately reflects calculations made in accordance with the established regulations.

59.             Reflecting on the 3rd question highlighted by this court in paragraph 36 of this judgment, "Is the financial statement submitted by the defendant accurate, and does it reflect the true entitlements owed to the claimants?", it is important to note that the defendant acknowledges its debt to the claimants. The defendant asserts that the accounting firm's calculations determined the total sum owed to the claimants as N89,036,783.00. Additionally, the defendant provided a detailed breakdown of how this amount was calculated based on each claimant's entitlements.

60.             The claimants' counsel further argued that this document is detrimental to them, as it inaccurately represents some claimants and reduces the amounts that should be paid to them as their final benefits. Accordingly, exhibit D3 must be expunged and ought not be giving any probative value as same was dumped and prejudicial to the claimants.

61.             This court notes the absence of a clear breakdown or formula from the claimants for calculating the amounts owed, which complicates the evaluation of the defendant's financial statement. For the court to admit the financial statement as accurate, the defendant would need to provide compelling evidence that it is a fair and accurate representation of the claimants' entitlements. This includes demonstrating how the entitlements were calculated and ensuring that the calculations align with the company's staff rules and regulations. Additionally, the court would consider whether the financial difficulties cited by the defendant justify any discrepancies or delays.

62.             I painstakingly went through exhibit D3. It is stated in the covering letter in paragraph 3 as follows:

“Our review of the staff handbooks on the terminal benefits provisions and the conditions of service clauses for both senior and junior staff of the hotel clearly shows that the computation of the gratuity and retirement benefits by the past management were based on wrong calculation[s] and not in agreement with the existing provisions of staff handbook”.  

63.             The exhibit also included findings from the review of the staff handbooks, offering the formula for calculating gratuity for both senior and junior staff. It presented observations and concluded its analysis. Additionally, the document attached statements of figures outlining what is owed to each hotel staff member and detailed the hotel's debt profile as of August 2020.

64.             This court evaluated whether the evidence submitted by the defendant was credible and aligned with the contractual obligations. Although the maker of the document (exhibit D3) was never called as an expert witness, the claimants, who bear the responsibility of supporting their claims, were unable to adequately present evidence to challenge the financial statement or demonstrate that it failed to adhere to the agreed-upon rules. Resolving this issue heavily relies on the strength and reliability of the evidence presented by both parties.

65.             Furthermore, in paragraph 10 of the statement of defence [and paragraph 9 of the witness’ sworn deposition], the defendant included a detailed list of the claimants' names along with the amounts they are entitled to. The claimants contested this in paragraph 2 of their reply to the statement of defence [and 4 of their witness’ sworn deposition]. This shifted the burden onto them to demonstrate how the amounts owed should be determined. However, the claimants did not fulfil this obligation, instead creating further opportunities for speculation and uncertainty, which is not conducive to resolving the matter.

66.             Thus, based on preponderating evidence, this court genuinely believes that the document presented and accepted as exhibit D3 is an accurate financial statement of the claimants' entitlements, and I affirm this. The claimants' objection to the document is therefore dismissed.

67.             In response to question 2 which is whether the defendant's refusal or delay in paying the claimants' entitlements is justified by the hotel's financial difficulties and closure, generally, financial difficulties do not absolve an employer from meeting their contractual and statutory obligations to employees. In the case of ADEBIYI V. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION (2013) JELR-35286 (CA), the court held that an employer is bound by the terms of the contract of employment, and financial incapacity is not a tenable defence for non-payment of entitlements owed under such a contract.

68.             Moreover, in UNICORN ENTERPRISES Ltd. AND ANOR V. NDIC (2019) 10 CLRN 1143 PAGE 134, where an admission of indebtedness is clear and unequivocal, the debtor who made the admission is bound to pay the sum admitted.

69.             It is necessary to emphasize that financial constraints cannot be used to deny employees their rightful entitlements upon retirement or termination. It is for this reason that employers are expected to plan and make provisions for fulfilling these obligations regardless of their financial status.

70.             In resolving this question however, this court must also consider whether the defendant demonstrated genuine efforts to resolve the financial difficulties and communicate these challenges transparently to the claimants. If the defendant was proactive in attempting to resolve the financial issues and engaged with the claimants in good faith, this might mitigate the severity of the delay's impact.

71.             After reviewing the evidence presented in this court, there is ample reason to believe that the defendant made efforts to communicate its financial situation to the claimants. I find evidence supporting the defendant's claim that, if not for the financial downturn it faced, the claimants' entitlements would have been paid on time. The delay in payments was not due to malice or callousness, as the claimants suggested in their statement of facts. Therefore, I do not agree with the claimants that the court should declare the defendant's delay in computing and paying the final entitlements since 2016 as "wicked, inexcusable, callous, and immoral." As a result, Relief A of their claims is denied and dismissed due to a lack of evidence to the contrary. The defendant is still required to meet its obligations, and the court will ensure these are fulfilled within a reasonable timeframe, potentially allowing for a structured payment plan if immediate payment is not feasible, and I so affirm.

72.             Question 5 is whether the defendant is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amounts from the date of the claimants' retirement until the payment is made. In addressing the issue of whether the defendant is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amounts from the date of the claimants' retirement until payment is made, it is essential to consider both statutory provisions and relevant case law.

73.             Under Nigerian law, the award of interest on outstanding debts may be governed by statutory provisions such as the Rules of Court, contractual agreements between parties, or equitable principles. Specifically, Order 47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017 provides the court with the discretion to award interest on any judgment sum from the date the cause of action arose until judgment is delivered and thereafter until payment.

74.             Additionally, the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the case of EKWUNIFE V. WAYNE (WEST AFRICA) LTD. (1989) 5 NWLR (PT. 122) 422, established that interest could be awarded on a debt where there is a contractual or statutory basis, or where it is equitable to do so. The rationale is to compensate the creditor for being deprived of the use of the money that was rightfully theirs.

75.             In UNICORN ENTERPRISES Ltd. & ANOR V. NDIC (SUPRA) at pages 137 and 138, the court held that pre-judgment interest can only be granted to a party where there is an express agreement to that effect and must be pleaded and strictly proved. A party claiming may not plead or prove same but may be entitled to pre-judgment interest in circumstances where the debtor fails to pay the debt over a period of time thereby depriving the person the use of and enjoyment of the money owed.  

76.             In the present case, the claimants retired between 2016 and 2020, and the defendant has acknowledged the debt but cited financial difficulties as the reason for the delay in payment. Given this acknowledgment, coupled with the court's finding that the financial statement accurately reflects the entitlements owed, it would be equitable to award interest to compensate the claimants for the delayed payment of their retirement benefits.

77.             Considering the above legal authorities and principles, the court finds that the defendant is liable to pay interest on the outstanding amounts owed to the claimants. This interest shall accrue from the respective dates of the claimants' retirement until the date of full payment. The rate of interest shall be in accordance with the prevailing statutory interest rate of not less than 10% applicable under the National Industrial Court Rules or as deemed equitable by the court.

78.             This decision underscores the necessity for employers to fulfil their financial obligations promptly and serves as a deterrent against undue delay in the payment of retirement benefits. The award of interest is justified to ensure the claimants are adequately compensated for the time value of money lost during the period of delay.

79.             Therefore, the claimants reliefs C and D sought in their writ of claims are grantable, and I so declare.

80.             In resolving the 6th and final question which is whether the defendant should bear the costs of the suit due to their actions or inactions regarding the payment of the claimants' entitlements, we must consider the principles governing the award of costs in legal proceedings. Costs are generally awarded at the discretion of the court but are typically guided by the need to compensate the successful party for expenses incurred during litigation and to discourage frivolous or vexatious claims or defences.

81.             The primary judicial authority on awarding costs is encapsulated in the case of OSHOBOJA V. AMUDA [1992] 6 NWLR (PT. 250) 690, where the Supreme Court of Nigeria held that costs are awarded to indemnify a party for expenses incurred in the prosecution or defence of a suit. The rationale is to ensure fairness and justice, preventing a party from being unjustly enriched or suffering undue financial burden due to the legal process.

82.             In this case, while the defendant acknowledged its debt to the claimants and attributed the delay in payment to financial difficulties, the court recognizes the claimants' entitlement to their retirement benefits, including interest on the outstanding amounts. However, this court also found that the delay was not due to malice, but rather genuine financial constraints faced by the defendant.

83.             Given these circumstances, the court must balance the interests of both parties. Although the defendant's financial difficulties do not absolve it of its obligations, it must be considered whether its actions were unreasonable or vexatious enough to warrant bearing the costs of the suit.

84.             In NIGERIAN PORTS AUTHORITY V. CONSTRUZIONI GENERALI FARSURA COGEFAR SPA [1974] 1 ALL NLR (PT. 2) 463, the court emphasized that costs should not be punitive but compensatory. The court found that the defendant had demonstrated a legitimate basis for the delay, supported by evidence, which the claimants failed to adequately refute.

85.             Therefore, considering the defendant's acknowledgment of the debt, the court's finding of no malice, and the financial constraints faced, it would not be just to impose the costs of the suit solely on the defendant. Instead, the court may exercise its discretion to order that each party bears its own costs, thereby ensuring a fair resolution without unduly penalizing the defendant for circumstances largely beyond its control.

86.             As such, while the claimants are entitled to their retirement benefits with interest, the equitable approach in awarding costs is for each party to bear its own costs in this matter.

87.             Regarding the issues found in Exhibit D3, such as the omission of some claimants' names, inaccuracies concerning their positions prior to retirement, or discrepancies due to claimants passing away before the case concluded, and whether they are owed more or less than the amounts listed, the defendant is ordered to rectify all these errors within 30 days from the issuance of this judgment. Additionally, a comprehensive documentation of the claims must be recorded against the names or successors in interest of each claimant.

88.             In conclusion and for the sake of clarity and the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever, the claimants’ case succeeds in part. The following orders are hereby granted thus:

                                                              i.      A declaration that the claimants are entitled to their retirement benefits, which have been wrongfully withheld by the defendant since 2016 to 2020 based on the computation contained in the financial report produced and presented by the accounting firm of Messrs Chris Agbo & Co.

                                                           ii.      An order for the payment of the claimants' entitlements with 10% interest per annum accruing from the respective retirement dates of each claimant until full payment is made.

                                                         iii.      An order directing the defendant to commence payment of the entitlements within 60 days of this judgment through the agreed means of payment either directly to the claimants or to their legal representatives.

89.             The court, however, does not find the defendant's actions to be malicious and thus, does not award exemplary damages or costs of the suit to the claimants. Instead, it determines that each party should bear its own costs, reflecting a balanced consideration of the circumstances surrounding the case, including the financial challenges faced by the defendant.

90.             Judgment is entered accordingly.

Delivered in Jos this 3rd day of February 2025.

 

 

 

 

HON. JUSTICE IBRAHIM SULEIMAN GALADIMA

JUDGE.

 

 

Public access to NICN decisions:

Judgments and reasons for the judgments are published, in full, online at https://nicnadr.gov.ng. NICN decisions are available to the general public shortly after a copy each has been sent to the applicant(s) and respondent(s) in a case.