The Presiding Judge of the National Industrial Court, Kaduna Judicial division, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Sinmisola Adeniyi has dismissed in its entirety the case filed by Mr. Istvan Nagy against COEC Construction for lacking merit.
The Court held that Nagy failed to establish to the satisfaction of the Court, his entitlement to the unpaid salaries and the sum expended on behalf of the firm as claimed that no concrete evidence was adduced and as such the claims are unsustainable.
According to the Claimant-Mr. Nagy, he was not deterred by the stoppage or nonpayment of his salary between May 2015 and November 2015 that he carried out any duty or function assigned to him by the Defendant and on several occasions, he demanded his salary and loans from the Defendant and was told to be patient.
That he complained to the firm on different occasions regarding the nonpayment of his salaries and as a result, he claimed that he became the subject of abuses.
In opposition, the company denied owing him any salary that he ceased to be in its employment as at May 2015 that the Claimant was paid the salary for the duration of the contract as agreed by parties and denied renewal.
Counsel to the defendant asked for determination among others whether the Claimant has established by evidence, that he was employed by the Defendant beyond the three (3) months stipulated in his letter of employment.
In reply, Claimant further testified that he exchanged many correspondences through telephone calls and Whatsapp messages with one of his supervisor tendered as an exhibit which the defendant objected to the admissibility for the failure to satisfy the preconditions required for admissibility of an electronic document.
Delivering Judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Adeniyi dismissed the arguments of the Claimant’s learned counsel on substantial compliance of Evidence Act and further that no iota of evidence by the Claimant to prove that his employment with the Defendant was renewed.
“What is required by law is full compliance and not substantial compliance as learned counsel assumed.
“As such, the totality of the submissions and arguments of the Claimant’s learned counsel (and indeed the Claimant’s learned counsel’s Reply arguments in that regard) as to the substantial compliance with the requirements of Section 84 of the Evidence Act is totally misconceived and is hereby discountenanced.” Justice Adeniyi ruled.