Media
- Home
- Details
Lagos – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Ikechi Nweneka of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Lagos has declared the refusal of the Tata Africa Services [Nigeria] Limited to pay Ex-Staff Wilfred Obi sales commission and end of service benefit without explanation nearly four years after resignation as breach of the terms of the contract of employment and unlawful and held that non-payment of the purchase price or full purchase price is not a bar to recovery of the Claimant’s commission.
The court ordered Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum N1, 500,000.00 being money due to the Claimant as commission on the sale of 100 units of Tata Ace Refuse Collection Mini Trucks to Lagos State Government, and the sum of One million five hundred and thirty six thousand, eight hundred and twenty six naira, twenty kobo only being Claimant’s end of service benefits, and the sum of N100, 000.00 as general damages within 30 days.
By writ of summons dated 9th February 2017, the Claimant claimed against the Defendant among others; An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of 1,500,00.00 Naira commission only payable on vehicles sold by the Claimant to the Lagos State Government through Lagos State Waste Management Authority.
An order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N1,536,826.20 [one million five hundred and thirty six thousand, eight hundred and twenty six naira, twenty kobo] only which represent[s] the retirement emolument due to Claimant for his service to the Defendant from 4th November 2008 to 15th June 2015.
From facts, the Claimant was employed in November 2008 and voluntarily resigned on 29th April 2015. In his letter of resignation, the Claimant expressed hope that he would be paid his commission on the sale of 100 Tata Ace Refuse Collection Mini Trucks.
In its acceptance of the Claimant’s resignation, the Defendant was silent on the issue of the commission but wrote: “You shall receive any severance payment in accordance with the company policy.” Having waited in vain the Claimant commenced this action due to the Defendant’s refusal to pay the commission and his end of service benefit.
The Defendant contended that sales commission was team-based and shared amongst the entire sales structure including management who initiated the sales and no commission was declared in respect of the sale of 100 Tata Ace Refuse Collection Mini Trucks.
Learned Counsel for the Defendant submitted that the Defendant did not have a policy for payment of retirement benefit or end of service emolument to its employees when the Claimant resigned his appointment.
He argued that the Employee handbook was not binding because it was not signed and was not intended to create legal relation between the Defendant and its employees.
Counsel to the claimant explained that the Claimant is in the category of 5years to 9years and submitted that the Defendant is bound by the provision of the Employee Handbook.
The counsel argued that the certificate of payment tendered by the Claimant does not hold water as it does not show that the balance of N9, 975,000.00 has been paid to the Defendant.
In response, learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted that by virtue of the provision of the company sales handbook, the commission sharing formula was succinctly enumerated and enables the Claimant to lay claim to the stated commission.
He contended that the argument that Lagos State Government still has an outstanding sum to pay on the contract and as a result, the Claimant is not entitled to commission holds no water.
After careful evaluation of all the processes filed, and the submissions of the learned Counsel from both sides, the Court presided by Hon. Justice Ikechi Nweneka expressed thus;
“Clearly, defendant witness is an inconsistent witness speaking from the two sides of her mouth. In one breadth she denied that the Claimant is entitled to commission, in another breadth she declared that commission is payable but team based. This gives the impression that the Defendant has something to hide and is not a witness of truth.
“From the facts and circumstances of this case, a reply to letters written by the Claimant’s Solicitors was necessary. The letters are clear and specific on the Claimant’s demands.
“By its silence, therefore, the Defendant is presumed to have admitted the correctness of the Claimant’s claim and cannot now deny liability for the sum of N1, 500,000.
“Paragraphs 8, 11, 12 and 15 of defendant witness statement on oath are mere afterthought designed to hoodwink the Court and I so hold.
“Consequently, I find and hold that the Claimant has proved his claim for payment of commission on the sale of 100 units of Tata Ace Refuse Collection Mini Trucks to Lagos State Waste Management Authority and entitled to the sum of N1, 500,000.
“On the issue of outstanding payment of N9, 975,000 on the trucks, I am of the view that the non-payment of the purchase price or full purchase price is not a bar to recovery of the Claimant’s commission.
“Accordingly, I find and hold that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N1, 536,826.20 end of service benefit. Equally, I find and hold that the refusal of the Defendant to pay the Claimant his commission and end of service benefit without explanation nearly four years after his resignation is in breach of the terms of the contract of employment and unlawful.”
On the whole, the court ordered Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum N1, 500,000.00 being money due to the Claimant as commission on sale of 100 units of Tata Ace Refuse Collection Mini Trucks to Lagos State Government, and the sum of One million five hundred and thirty six thousand, eight hundred and twenty six naira, twenty kobo only being Claimant’s end of service benefits, and the sum of N100, 000.00 as general damages within 30 days.
