Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos –The Presiding Judge, National Industrial Court, Lagos Division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip on Tuesday 9th October 2018 in a judgment dismissed the suit filed by James Francis Etim (claimant) against Ikeja Electricity Distribution Plc (defendant) demanding entitlement and reinstatement claims for laking merit.
The claimant had filed this suit on 12th January 2017 and sought against the defendant among others: A declaration that the claimant is still validly and contractually within the employment of the defendant and is, therefore, entitled to all his salaries, entitlements, allowances, pension and other benefits from November 2013 until it is properly and lawfully determined. Likewise, An order commanding the defendant to reinstate the claimant to its services and to pay the claimant his full salaries, entitlements, allowances, pension and other benefits from November 2013 up to the date of judgment.
From the statement of facts, the claimant was a staff of the Power Holding Company of Nigeria before its privatization. Just before the privatization exercise, the claimant was transferred from the Eko Electricity branch of Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) to Ikeja Electricity Branch where he continued to work prior to and after the privatization exercise.
Upon privatization, the claimant was assured by the defendant to continue his work under the defendant’s employment pending when the defendant will finish compiling records of the defunct PHCN employees under its employment.
The claimant asserted that It was based on the defendant’s assurances that the claimant applied for leave and was granted by the defendant. Notably too, the defendant instructed the claimant to retrieve the document verifying his status as a staff of PHCN from Eko Electricity and submit to the defendant for the processing of his confirmation by the defendant and that the defendant turned round to deny the claimant the opportunity to continue to resume under the defendant’s employment at a period when it was too late for the claimant to resume at Eko Electricity, hence this case.
The defendant admitted that the claimant was an employee of Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN) Eko Zone before he was transferred to Ikeja Zone sometime in 2013 and that the claimant remained an employee of PHCN in the Eko Zone despite the transfer to Ikeja Electricity Distribution Company. The defendant averred that the claimant was never documented as their staff and that they never paid any salary and allowance to the claimant as he remained a staff of PHCN, Eko Electricity Distribution Company. The defendant’s case is that upon conclusion of the privatization process on 1st November 2013 all the contracts of employment of PHCN staff were terminated; and to provide soft landing for the PHCN staff, the Bureau of Public Enterprises in conjunction with PHCN brokered a 6 months fixed contract for PHCN staff based on their last known staff records.
The defendant averred that since the claimant did not receive a fixed contract employment from them he was advised on his resumption from leave to proceed to Eko Electricity Distribution Company to verify the status of his employment since that was the place of his last official posting.
To the defendant, in order to succeed on this relief, the claimant must tender his contract of employment which is the bedrock of any employment claim.
That the evidence that he continued to work pending when the defendant finished compiling the list of staff to be absorbed for 6 months is corroborated by the evidence of DW under cross-examination that the claimant was just coming to the premises of the defendant but was not given any work to do and not paid a salary.
The defendant then urged the Court to resolve the issue in the defendant's favor and hold that the claimant has no contact of employment with the defendant.
Flowing from his submissions, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the claimant had a contract of employment with the defendant and is consequently entitled to his claim for salaries, entitlement, allowance, pension and other benefits from November 2013 till the date of judgment.
After painstakingly and carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side, the presiding Judge Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip held that the transfer of the claimant to the defendant in the instant case did not mean that PHCN, Eko Zone, ceased to be the employer of the claimant, that the claimant has not shown to this Court any sufficient proof that his employment relationship was transferred to the defendant as to make the defendant his employer.
The court maintained that the reliance of the claimant on the approval of annual leave by the defendant, is insufficient to prove that thereby the defendant became his employer and that the argument of the claimant that contractual relations can emanate from the conduct of the parties since a contract may be implied does not help his case since sufficient facts have not been placed before the Court to enable the Court come to that conclusion in his own case.
“In all, there is no sufficient proof that the claimant was an employee of the defendant. The claims of the claimant are all hinged on being an employee of the defendant. Since this has not been shown, the claims fail and so are hereby dismissed.” Justice Kanyip declared.
