Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji of the National Industrial Court, Lagos Judicial Division has ordered Tarez Synergy Ltd to pay Mr Michael Taiwo the sum of Five Hundred and Seventy Four Thousand, Four Hundred and Seventy Naira only being the balance of arrears of salaries after deduction of IOU within 60 days.
The Court declared withholding of Micheal salaries as wrongful and held that it's not mandatory that a Claimant in an action founded on the contract of employment must present a letter of appointment.
From facts, the Claimant- Mr Micheal in his evidence testified that he had an oral agreement to work for the firm on agreed salary and was not given a letter of employment despite repeated requests.
Further that due to the irregular payment of salaries, he was constrained to collect IOU and petty cash from the director to survive. The Claimant’s submitted that his unpaid salaries for the period he worked for the Defendants after deduction of IOU is Five hundred and Seventy-four thousand four hundred and seventy Naira remains to be paid by the Defendants.
In opposition, the firm filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection to strike out the suit on the ground that the no privity of contract of employment between the Claimant that the court lacks the jurisdiction to hear the case.
The company submitted that Michael was never employed either by the firm or its director at any time, in any capacity or on any salary that Claimant was an independent contractor and was adequately remunerated on each occasion he was called upon for service.
Delivering Judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Oji held that Nigerian employment jurisprudence recognizes that a contract of employment can be entered into orally, or even by conduct dismissed the preliminary objection for lacking merit.
“In the midst of all these, I closely watched the demeanour of the Claimant, and I believe his testimony. I believe and find it more probable that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendants than not.
“By the letter from the Claimant’s counsel dated 7th March 2017, the Claimant notified the Defendant of his claim and the IOU. The Defendant did not respond to this letter and the claims contained therein. I find this act of non-denial suggestive of admission.
“I, therefore, find the Defendants non-response to the letter to be tantamount to an admission. Consequently, I find the total denial of the Claimant as their employee, to be an afterthought.
“As a result of all the above, I find and hold that the withholding of the Claimant’s salaries long after the Defendants have ceased to work is wrongful.†Justice Oji Ruled.
