Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos---His Lordship, Hon. Justice J. D. Peters of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos on Tuesday 9th October 2018 in a judgment dismissed the suit filed by Awolesi Sunday Kayode and 2 others (For themselves and on behalf of other Babcock University Security Officers) against Babcock University in its entirety for lacking merit.
The Claimants approached this Court by their General Form of Complaint, sought against the Defendant among others; A declaration that the termination of the Claimants employment is unlawful. An order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimants to their employment with Defendant and for the payment of all outstanding salaries and emoluments from the date of the purported termination till date.
Likewise, An order for One Hundred Million Naira (=N=100,000,000.00) as general damages against the defendant for the unlawful termination of the Claimants employment.
The Defendant entered an appearance, filed its statement of defence together with all processes as required and counter-claimed for A declaration that the claims of the Claimants are defamatory to the good name of the Defendant as it is a Private Christian Institution. Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) as damages for the defamation of the good name of the Defendant.
The case of the Claimants is that they have been in employment with Defendant for several years ranging from five years to over twenty years; that Defendant in total disregard of their long years of service purportedly terminated their employment on the 1/3/12 by public announcement and also refused to pay them their entitlements/benefits; that the Claimants approached Civil Rights Liberty Organization to represent them in this matter of unlawful termination; that the Civil Rights Liberty Organization did communicate with the appropriate authorities at Babcock University by writing to them and sought an amicable resolution of the matter; that the Defendant on receiving the letters from Civil Rights Liberty Organization hurriedly paid the salary of the last month of work that the Security Officers worked and deceptively termed the monthly salary the security officers disengagement entitlements; that the Defendant wrote a letter to Civil Rights Liberty Organization deceptively claiming to have paid the security officers their entitlements whereas they never did and that the Defendant has persistently refused, ignored and or neglected to reinstate the Claimants to their positions as security officers and have refused to pay disengagement benefits.
Under cross-examination, the witness stated that he worked as Security Officer with the Defendant for 8 years; that he had staff identity card at the beginning but that while terminating his appointment Defendant asked the Claimants to submit their identity cards; that he did through clearance though was not issued any disengagement Form; that he was paid only a month salary which Defendant owed him after a year of disengagement and that he does not have letter of employment.
The witness added that when he was employed he was being paid =N=7,500.00 as Asst. Security Supervisor; that Defendant later promised to give him a letter of employment that at the time his appointment was terminated his salary was =N=25,500.00 monthly; that he is giving evidence on behalf of 31 officers laid off.
The case of the Defendant is that the Claimants were daily rated staff and that after the termination of their employment they were paid in lieu of notice. Under cross-examination, the witness testified that Claimants were employed as daily rated staff; that their income is based on the number of days they work in a month; that both letters of appointment and identification cards were not withdrawn from the Claimants; that he is not aware that some of the Claimants worked for about 21 years; that he is not aware that any of the Claimants worked for more than 10 years before their appointment was termination; that the Claimants were employees of the Defendant; that as daily rated staff Claimants are only entitled to a month salary in lieu of notice and that the Employee Handbook provides for entitlement of disengaged staff.
Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimants and enter Judgment in terms of the counterclaim sought.
After reviewing the argument of both parties, the Court Presided by Hon. Justice J. D. Peters expressed thus;
“…I have no evidence before me to show that the Claimants ever worked for the Defendant after they were disengaged by the Defendant. Thus to make an order for payment of salaries and allowances as sought will amount to the Defendant being ordered to pay its former employees for services not rendered. This Court will not make such an order. I therefore refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof.
“Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimants in its entirety. I also in like manner and for reasons as stated dismiss the counter claims sought. I make no order as to cost.” His Lordship Declared.
