Media
- Home
- Details
Portharcourt – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Zaynab Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Portharcourt, Rivers State, on Monday 25th March 2019 dismissed the case filed by an ex-staff Martins Agabi against Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd in its entirety for lacking merit.
The court held that it is not in a position to re-write agreements for parties and cannot compel the Nigerian Agip Oil Company Ltd (Defendant) to do what it has not expressly or impliedly agreed to do.
The Claimant sought against the Defendant among others for An order of specific performance of the Collective Agreement of 2014 conditions of service between Defendant’s management and its staff for supply and delivery of 1800 litres of diesel and 380 litres of fuel monthly to the Claimant pursuant to vested retirement benefits save for the back log of the same supplies of the petroleum products from the Claimant’s date of retirement on 11th of April 2016.
Arising from the amended statement of claim and witness statements on oath, the case of the Claimant is that he is a retired staff of the Defendant. He posited that at the time of his retirement, there was applicable the 2014 condition of service of the Defendant which stipulates his entitlements and benefits including diesel for generator at 1800 litres per month and fuel for car at 380 litres per month. Upon his retirement, he notified the Defendant of his retirement to his home town Fugar in Edo State for which he required that the said retirement facilities be made available to him on monthly basis but the Company failed since 11th April 2016 to send any responses to the request.
He also directed his lawyer to write to the Managing Director to demand for the supplies, yet he got no response. Claimant, therefore, wants the backlogs that were not supplied to be monetized and an order for the continuous supply and that led to the institution of this suit.
During cross-examination, claimant posited that he knows that there are other retirees in Lagos, Rivers, and Abuja but he doesn’t know if fuel and diesel are not supplied outside the city centers of Lagos, Rivers and Abuja and posited that he is not aware that the Defendant tried to reach him in 2016 to know if the fuel and diesel can be supplied to him in Port Harcourt but he is aware that the fuel and diesel is available for collection.
The Defendant posited that the “2014, conditions of service of the Defendant’s Company” referred to by the Claimant was revised on August 17, 2015. Therefore, the applicable conditions of service when the Claimant retired was contained in a handbook revised on 17th August 2015.
The Defendant via a letter dated 30th June 2016 requested the Claimant to provide his contact for the purpose of collecting the said diesel and petrol in Port Harcourt or in any of the Defendant’s operational areas in accordance with the Defendant’s established practice but the Claimant refused, neglected and failed to respond to the Defendant’s letter dated 30th June 2016.
The Defendant concluded that the Claimant is not entitled to any relief as they are baseless, spurious and annoying and urged the court to dismiss the same with cost.
In the course of cross-examination, the defendant witness posited that it is false that the Defendant has operational bases in Benin and Warri. He confirmed that the current monetization applies to junior workers, managers, and superintendents but it has never been applied to retired staff and counsel urged the court to dismiss the case with substantial cost.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides. The Court presided by Hon. Justice Zaynab Bashir expressed thus;
“I have considered the provision of paragraph 16(d) and find rightly so that there is no provision for how the petroleum products are to be benefitted by the Claimant. I also found that the provision does not place any obligation on the Defendant to either supply the product to the Claimant’s home in Fugar, Edo state or anywhere in fact, neither does it place the obligation to monetize the product on the Defendant and in view of that, this court cannot make such order to compel the Defendant to do what it has not expressly or impliedly agreed to do.
In view of the foregoing meaning of the word ‘continue’, it suffices to say that the Claimant would go on with the collection of the products as he has been doing in the absence of any change in practice.
“while the Claimant is entitled to certain litres of petroleum products, there was never an obligation for the Defendant to supply or deliver same at the home of the Claimant in Fugar Edo state. hence, no breach.
“In the final analysis, the case of the Claimant is devoid of all merit; it fails in its entirety and same is accordingly dismissed.”
