Media
- Home
- Details
Abuja – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Abuja, FCT, on Tuesday 8th January 2019 in a judgment dismissed suit filed by PROF. OKECHUKWU UGWUEJE (Claimant) against NIGERIAN COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (1st Defendant) and Digital Bridge Institute (2nd Defendant) on entitlement claim for lacking merit. The court ordered defendants to pay salary in lieu of notice upon the termination of his employment within 30 days.
Arising from the Complaint and amended statement of fact, the Claimant is claiming against the Defendants jointly and severally as follows: A Declaration that the failure of the Defendant to harmonize and regularize the employment status of the Claimants in the service of the 2nd Defendant with the status of the staff in the service of the 2nd Defendant without any justification known to law, is unlawful, ultra vires the Offer of Employment dated 1st April 2008 and the Nigerian Communications Commission staff Conditions of Service being the instruments regulating the employment of the Claimants and is therefore illegal, oppressive unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect.
A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by letter dated 26th February 2015 without any valid cause or reason related to his capacity, conduct or operational requirements of the 2nd Defendant is unlawful, illegal, oppressive, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect. Likewise, An Order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimant to his position as Vice President Academics and Student Affairs in the Defendant the termination of his employment being unfair, contrary to international best practices as regards labour matters, invalid, null and void and of no effect.
The case of the Claimant is that he was invited by the 1st Defendant for an interview and was on the 1st of February, 2006 issued with a letter of appointment and condition of service and deployed to the 2nd Defendant as its Deputy Head, Research, Education and Curriculum Department on Grade Level 16. Later in 2008, 1st Defendant after several interviews on the 15th of April, 2008 issued a letter of Appointment and Conditions of Service and appointed him as Vice President, Academics and Student Affairs of the 2nd Defendant which is equivalent to the position of a Director in the 1st Defendant.
At the induction, the Executive Vice-Chairman of the 1st Defendant made him to understand that his career path would be guided by the Commission. Upon resumption of duties at the 2nd Defendant, the Claimant’s salaries and emoluments were equivalent to that of FULL DIRECTORS of the 1st Defendant and it remained so for a while. But later he noticed some disparities which was contrary to what was stated in his letter of appointment. Several appeals were made for regularization but it yielded no result.
On 26th of February, 2015 2nd Defendant terminated his employment without any reason. He added that after terminating his employment, the Defendants have failed, neglected, refused to pay him his salary arrears, severance allowance and entitlements, contrary to international best practices as regards labour matters.
Arising from the statement of defence and witness statement on oath, the case of the 1st Defendant is that the 1st Defendant made it clear to the Claimant that the 2nd Defendant was his employer and not the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant also maintained that there is difference between 1st and 2nd Defendant and that the condition of service of the 1st Defendant has always been used as reference document for other organizations and that was the case for the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant urged the court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant.
The 2nd Defendant also posited that the Claimant’s employment was based on the 2nd Defendant’s condition of service and employment was terminated because his office was no longer sustainable while the Claimant has been paid all his salary arrears and entitlements due to him.
Claimant counsel posited that the Claimants were Public Servants as they were in service of the Government of the Federation and as such their employment was not ordinarily subject to termination without reason or reasons related to their capacity, conduct or the operational requirements of the 2nd Defendant.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Z. M. Bashir expressed thus;
“What I find incongruent from the evidence before the court which must have been responsible for the above contentions are that firstly, the said letter bears a letterhead with the name of the 1st Defendant. Secondly, the letter of appointment did not state who exactly was appointing the Claimant.
“In the instant suit, the Claimant failed to prove that the 1st and 2nd Defendant are parent and subsidiaries hence it is not established and the court cannot hold same.
“Even where the companies are parent and subsidiaries, the employee of one would not ordinarily be deemed as employee of the other as both companies are distinct entities.
“In view of the forgoing, it is the holding of this court that Claimant is an employee of the 2nd Defendant despite the involvement of the 1st Defendant in the recruitment of the Claimant.
“In view of the forgoing, the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought except for the payment of his salary in lieu of notice in accordance with letter of appointment upon the termination of his employment.
“In the final analysis, I find that the claimant’s case generally lacks merit.
“While the order of this court in relation to the payment of terminal benefits to the Claimant must be complied with within 30 days of the delivery of this judgment, the rest of the claims of the Claimant is accordingly dismissed.” Justice Zainab Bashir declared
