Media
- Home
- Details
Owerri – His Lordship, Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Owerri, on Thurday 31st January 2019 in a judgment declared CAPTAIN YAHAYA ZAMDAI WAMBAI (Claimant’s) disengagement by BOURBON INTEROIL NIG. LTD. And OARSMANNS MARITIME SERVICE LTD (defendants) as wrongful and in breach of contract of employment. The court awarded the sum of N 2,063,098.80 to the claimant as general damages for the wrongful employment termination, N 500,000.00 (five hundred thousand naira) only as cost of maintaining this action among others.
This judgment is in respect of this suit which was filed on the 14th of February, 2017 where the claimant sought among others: A declaration that the Defendants are in breach of their contract of employment with the Claimant. Special damages for Six (6) years and nine (9) months withheld part - salaries and entitlements due to the Claimant for the period between May, 2009 to February 2016 equalling N 18,096,678.05;
Likewise, One month salary in lieu of notice of termination of contract equalling N 562, 544.01
The Claimant was an employee of the 1st Defendant employed through the 2nd Defendant who is purportedly an agent to the 1st Defendant. That the Claimant was engaged as a Seafarer (Captain) via an offer of appointment letter dated the 28th of May, 2009. It was the Claimant’s contention that at all material times prior his disengagement by the 1st Defendant, he was never paid completely according to the terms of the contract of employment despite the promises purportedly made by the Defendants to so do.
In its Defence, the 1st Defendant BOURBON INTEROIL NIG. LTD denied any liability for the Claimant’s suit for the sums claimed.
The 2nd Defendant OARSMANNS MARITIME SERVICE LTD admitted that it employed the Claimant to work as a Seafarer in the 1st Defendant’s vessel in accordance with the written terms of contract agreement between the Defendants, and also denied further liability of the claims put up and contended that the Claimant failed in proving his claims.
According to the submissions made by the 1st Defendant, there is a lone issue for determination thus: “Whether having regard to the pleadings and the evidence so far adduced at trial, the Claimant has established that he is an employee of the 1st Defendant and a fortiori, entitled to the reliefs sought against it”.
In response to the Claimant’s final written address, learned Counsel submitted for determination on whether there is a contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants, it was argued that the 1st Defendant employed the 2nd Defendant as an independent contractor and not as it’s agent.
After careful analysis of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice I. S. Galadima declared as wrongful, the Claimant’s disengagement and expressed thus;
“The law is settled on this point that in the interpretation of a contract, including a contract of employment involving several documents, the court must read all the documents together, in order to ascertain the agreement of the parties.
“Now, in my respectful view, the clauses in the claimant’s employment contracts reproduced above, give the 1st defendant certain obligations towards the claimant. The inevitable inference by me, is that, there is a “co-employment relationship” between the claimant and the defendants.
“It is evident from the documentary evidence in the instant case, that each of the defendants were responsible, and did share responsibility for certain obligations of the claimant’s employment.
“Accordingly, I find and hold that the claimant was an employee of both of the 1st and 2nddefendants respectively.
“It is my view that the duration of notice (employment termination) fell short of the required one month’s notice stipulated in the contract between the parties thus causing these defendants to be in breach of the stipulations of the contract of employment.
“Previously, it used to be that in awarding damages for wrongful termination of employment, this Court mostly settled for an award of one month’s salary in lieu or whatever the contract of employment provided.
“However, I note that His Lordship the President of this Court, Hon. Justice B. A. Adejumo, upped the scale, when in Mrs. Folarin Oreka Maiya v. The Incorporated Trustees of Clinton Health Access Initiative, Nigeria & 2 ors (2012) 27 NLLR (Pt. 76) 110 NIC awarded as compensation, one year's gross salary, which came to (N5,576,670.00) to the claimant.
“Also, my Learned Brother Justice B. Kanyip in Suit No: NICN/LA/40/2012 in Mrs. Titilayo Akisanya v Coca-Cola Nigeria Limited delivered on 13/4/2016 awarded as damages one year's gross salary of N17,368,486 to the claimant.
“Accordingly, I award the sum of N 2,063,098.80 to the claimant as general damages for the wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment against these defendants jointly and or severally.”
The court also ordered defendants among others to pay claimant the sum of N180,000.00 being his annual hazard allowances for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 as per his terms of employment, the sum of N 500,000.00 (five hundred thousand naira) only as cost of maintaining this action, and all payment must be paid within 14 days.
