Media
- Home
- Details
Portharcourt – His Lordship, Hon. Justice Zaynab Bashir of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, sitting in Portharcourt, Rivers state has declared that the injury EDDIE SUNDAY suffered while on duty in the HALLIBURTON ENERGY SERVICES NIGERIA LIMITED workplace was not as a result of the company negligence and dismissed the claim of Thirty Million Naira special damages for permanent disability.
However, the Court ordered payment of Two million naira to the claimant as general damages for failure of the firm to pay compensation for the accident and injury sustained in the course of employment in accordance with Article of the company condition of service.
Arising from the Complaint and Statement of fact, the Claimant’s sought against the Defendant among other; A DECLARATION that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant without compensation for the injury he suffered while on duty which resulted to permanent disability and on the purported ground of redundancy is irregular and unlawful.
Likewise, A DECLARATION that the injury the Claimant suffered while on duty in the Defendant’s workplace was as a result of the Defendant’s negligence.
Arising from the statement of fact, the Claimant counsel posited that on 10th of July, 2014 the Claimant had an accident while on duty and the event leading to the accident was that the Claimant, supervisor and the crew members were informed that the company equipment shifted and needed to be put in the right position. In the process, iron on the line suddenly snapped, landed on the Claimant’s leg and broke his said leg.
The Claimant was immediately taken to the accommodation quarters for a First Aid treatment by the Defendant and later to the Hospital. The Orthopedic surgeon operated the left leg of the Claimant and the Defendant bought clutches for the Claimant to enable him to walk.
That While the Claimant was still going for check-up and waiting for the bone to get healed the Defendant unlawfully terminated the employment of the Claimant based on a purported redundancy without compensation for the accident that resulted to a permanent disability.
The defendant admitted that the Claimant was involved in an accident while on duty but the accident did not occur in the Defendant’s premises. They added that the Defendant could not with reasonable diligence have prevented the accident from occurring and it was not caused by the Defendant’s negligence in any manner.
They posited that it was the Claimant’s negligence that resulted in his injury as the Claimant failed and/or neglected to take adequate precautionary and safety measures.
That the Defendant also covered all the medical expenses of the Claimant for the injury sustained and for all his follow up treatments in the discharge of its duty that the Claimant was granted sick leave until he was certified fit to work on light duties and he resumed duties.
The Defendant maintained that the employment of the Claimant was lawfully terminated on grounds of redundancy that the Claimant had been compensated for the job loss.
In opposition, Counsel posited that the case of the Claimant before the court is for compensation for an injury sustained while on a duty and not the issue of payment of severance benefits/gratuity as misconceived by the Defendant’s counsel.
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;
“The contention of counsel to the Claimant that Personnel Protective Equipment (PPE) was inadequate is also unsustainable in view of the fact that it will be ridiculous to expect the Claimant to put on iron wear to prevent the impact of the fallen iron.
“In the instant case, the Claimant has failed to prove that the accident was reasonably foreseeable and that the Defendant breached its duty of care owed to him as an employee in the course of work.
“Although I must state that it is not established that the injury of the Claimant resulted to a permanent disability in view of the fact that the Claimant had been declared fit to work with the Defendant dated 22nd May 2015 and the Claimant indeed worked with the Defendant till 22nd December 2016.
“Also, Exhibit DW1(c) shows clearly that the Claimant had been scheduled for the removal of the stainless steel implant in his leg since 13th of January, 2017 but he has refused to attend the Hospital for the removal of the implant.
“The facts before this court and the evidence presented by the Claimant proved beyond doubt that he sustained an injury in the course of his work for the Defendant and by the provision of the Condition of Service binding between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant is entitled to Compensation.
“Although, the amount of compensation and how it is to be paid is a different issue in view of the provision of the said Article 500.06. Also, the failure to pay the compensation by the Defendant can only be considered to be wrongful as it is a violation of the condition of service and not unlawful.
Consequently, the court granted an order for the payment of the sum of N2,000,000.00(two million naira) as general damages for failure of the Defendants to pay the Claimant compensation for the accident and injury sustained in the course of employment with the Defendant in accordance with Article 500.06 of the Defendant’s condition of service and dismissed other relief for lacking merit.
