Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos –His Lordship, Hon. Justice J. D. Peters of The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, on Monday 11th February 2019 via judgment ordered Guinness Nigeria Plc (defendant) to pay ex-staff Henry Okpe (claimant) the sum of N3,864,124.21 being the Claimant's contribution to Voluntary Employee Saving Scheme and Handshake after deduction of the cost of the car sold to him by the Defendant, and the sum of N100,000 as cost of action within 30 days.
The Claimant filed General Form of Complain & Statement of Facts and sought against the Defendant, Three Million, Eight Hundred Thousand, Eight Hundred and Three Naira, Ninety Seven Kobo N=3,800,803.97). The total VOLUNTARY EMPLOYMENT SAVING SCHEME (VESS) contributed from March 2013 to date and handshake payable after the car deductions and N=20,000,000.00 exemplary Damages.
The simple facts of this case as revealed in both pleadings and evidence led are that Mr. Henry Okpe the Claimant was employed by the Defendant; that while in the employment of the Defendant he was paid both housing allowance (or paid some money to assist him with his housing needs in accordance with the policy of the Defendant) and some leave allowance; that while with the Defendant he was part of a scheme called Voluntary Employee Saving Scheme (VESS); that without any failing on his side the Defendant terminated his employment; that the Defendant paid him his entitlement but refused to pay his contribution to the Voluntary Employee Savings Scheme on the ground that Claimant must refund the housing allowance paid upfront which Defendant now regarded as a loan as well as the leave allowance already paid to him.
The claimant instructed his Solicitor to write a Letter of demand to the Defendant for the immediate release of my entitlement and that the said entitlement in the sum of Three Million, Eight Hundred Thousand, Eight Hundred and Three Naira, Ninety-Seven Kobo (=N=3,800,803.97) has not been paid to him till date.
The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was employed as a Divisional Sales Manager; that the Claimant was a contributor to the Voluntary Employee Saving Scheme (VESS) that he was withholding the Claimant's VESS contribution to enable it deduct the amount owed by the Claimant after which the balance will be released to him; that the Claimant at the time of termination of his employment indebted to the Defendant to the tune of =N=1,752,153.29 and that the Claimant was unable to collect his Voluntary Employee Saving Scheme contribution due to his indebtedness.
Under cross-examination, the Claimant testified that he did not obtain any loan from the Defendant; that Housing Loan is not a loan as such but a subsidy and not to be repaid.
That the Defendant has no right of set-off as to place a lien on the Claimant’s account; that the Defendant’s practice of instructing a third party Bank to instruct them to freeze their employees finds amounts to unfair trade practice which is not only unfair but oppressive & illegal.
The Defendant’s Counsel in a reply on point of law and canvassed that the Defendant has been fair on the Claimant as it paid two (2) months salaries in lieu of notice upon termination of the Claimant’s appointment.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice J. D. Peters expressed thus;
“The age-long principle of law is that he who approaches the Court for judicial redress has the burden of proving his entitlement to the reliefs sought.
“Without much ado, I further hold that from the housing support tendered and relied upon by the Defendant, I find no provision stating that any leave allowance paid to staff is repayable under any condition or circumstances.
“To, therefore, call on the Claimant to return payments legitimately earned is both un-equitable and unconscionable.”
The court ordered the defendant to pay to the Claimant sum of =N=3,864,124.21 being the Claimant's contribution to Voluntary Employee Saving Scheme and Handshake after deduction of the cost of the car sold to him by the Defendant, and the sum of N100,000 as the cost of action within 30 days.
His Lordship declined relief for exemplary damages.
