His Lordship, Hon. Justice J. D. Peters of the Lagos Division, National Industrial Court of Nigeria today Thursday 14th March, 2018 in a judgment dismissed suit Mrs. Callista Onouha V. Lorna Nigeria Limited for lack of proof as required by law.
The claimant counsel M.C. Bolowotan Esq. On 9/3/16 approached this Court via her General Form of Complaint & statement of facts and sought for The sum of =N=20,000,000.00 (Twenty Million Naira Only) being general damages for the injuries sustained in the course of serving the Defendant which injuries were occasioned by non-provision of protective materials for the Claimant and the life-time treatment of the claimant left eye and cost of this action.
The case of the Claimant as revealed by her pleadings and evidence led is that she was employed by the Defendant virtue of a contract of Agreement dated 1/11/13; that she had earlier worked for the Defendant for close to 26 years, voluntarily retired and was recalled by the Defendant on contract Agreement; that by virtue of the contract she was employed as an Assistant Production Manager to mix the chemical for the production of Weavon together with the Factory Manager; that on the 14/11/13 while was carrying on her duty mixing the chemicals together for production of Weavon that day the chemical splashed on her left eye; that she reported the incident to the Factory Production Manager who referred her to the General Production Manager and also the Human Resources Manager both who declined to authorize her to visit the Company’s clinic which is in compliance with the terms of her contract; that she decided on her own to attend private hospital to ameliorate the pain she was passing through in my left eye; that she was not referred to any hospital for treatment by the Defendant until the condition of her eye became critical; she was referred to Ikeja New Hospital to Tarib Eye Clinic where she got a report from the Doctor that she would be placed on treatment throughout her life time; that she has been visiting hospital on monthly basis with still no permanent cure for the left eye.
The case of the Defendant as garnered from its pleadings and evidence maintained there was no reported accident of chemical splash into the eye of the Claimant in or about the 14/11/13 or any accident at all at the Defendant’s factory; that contrary to the position of the Claimant, the Claimant did not report any incident or accident or chemical splash or any incident at all, to the Factory Production Manager. In November 2013; that the Claimant attended the Defendant’s factory clinic in February 2014 for the first time, to complain of eye problem i.e. about four (4) months after the alleged accident and was referred by the Clinic to New Ikeja Hospital, being the Defendant’s retained hospital on the 6/2/14 for treatment.
At the conclusion of trial, the Court directed learned Counsel on either side to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court.
Defendant submitted that the claim for damages lacks merit being an afterthought raised to secure another contract of employment; that the Claimant simply made a claim for =N=20, 000,000.00 without placing any evidence in support of her claim that she has been receiving treatment for the eye on a monthly basis; that there was no receipt of payments and no medical report and that at best the claim is merely speculative.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice J. D. Peters expressed thus:
I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side of this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted.
I find no proof of the alleged breach of duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant. The evidence led by the Claimant did not support the proof of this element of negligence. The law is that for a proof of negligence all the elements associated with same must be proved by the Claimant.
Having found that the Claimant did not discharge burden of proof respecting this element this Court has no choice than to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove her case to warrant a positive disposition in her favor. I so found and held.
Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant is dismissed for lack of proof as required by law. I make no order as to cost.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
For Full Judgment, Click Here…