Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice O. O. Arowosegbe of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Owerri judicial division on 13TH March 2018 delivered a judgment that the claimant is entitled to the remittal of his pensions in the case of MR. OHABUIRO ANTHONY NNAMDI v. UNIVERSAL INSURANCE PLC.
This suit begun by a complaint on 2nd December 2016. The Complaint was accompanied with a Statement of Facts. The reliefs claimed inter alia as follows;
An Order of Court that having served the defendant for Ten (10) years am entitled to the mandatory 3 months’ Notice of Retirement or Three (3) months Salary in lieu of Notice of retirement from August 2013 to November 2013 prior to the Claimant’s retirement on December 2013 amounting to ♯600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand Naira) only and An Order of Court mandating the Defendant to deduct 7.5% from my monthly salaries from June to 31st December, 2013 and also to deduct 12.5% of the employer’s contribution and account same for PAL PENSION from June to July 2013. [sic]
In this final written address titled “Defendant’s Final Written Address”, N.N. NWOKORIE, of counsel to the defendant, formulated the following issues: Whether the Claimant worked for 10years with the Defendant, Whether the defendant is indebted to the Claimant by virtue of the pleadings. Whether the Claimant is entitled to deductions claimed by him against the defendant without tendering any documents to show how he arrived at the deduction claimed and Whether the defendant is entitled to three (3) salaries in lieu of retirement.
After reviewing the argument of the parties, the Court Presided by HON. JUSTICE O.O. AROWOSEGBE, had this to say:
Having carefully summarised the final written addresses, the next duty placed on me is to apply law to the facts and come up with the appropriate decision in accordance with the law. In doing this, I adopt the lone issue formulated by the counsel to the claimant. This issue, albeit slightly amended, is concise enough and capable, in my humble view, of resolving the dispute, to wit:
Whether upon a calm view of the totality of evidence adduced, the claimant has established that he is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
However, the claimant is entitled to the remittal of his pensions from June 2004 to 2007, which by logic, the defendant impliedly admitted it did not pay by saying the claimant began his second coming in 2007. Logic suggests that the defendant could not have remitted pension contributions for a period it claimed the claimant was not in his employment.
Since the defendant did not state the exact date of the alleged second-coming employment in 2007, it is safe to take the whole of 2007 as the spectrum covered since the claimant’s claim for pension arrears is beyond the 2007. Therefore, the defendant is hereby ordered to calculate, based on section 9-(1)(c) & (2) and section 11(5) & (7) of the Pension Reform Act, 2004, which would be 15% of the monthly salaries, as the claimant’s pension remittal for a period of 42 months: 3 years, 6 months, and an interest of 2% per month on the arrears of the unremitted pensions.
These arrears should be paid over to PAL Pension within 60 days from the date of this judgment. Limitation law cannot catch up with the pension claims because they only ripen after retirement, which occurred in just 2013.
The claims for general and special damages fail. Apart from the fact that they not proved, general and special damages are not granted in breach of contracts; and more particularly in claims based on breach of contract of employment, where these are sparingly granted.
For Full Judgment, Click Here…
