Media
- Home
- Details
His Lordship, Hon. Justice Isaac Essien of the Lagos Judicial of the National Industrial Court has dismissed the case filed by Godwin Lawrence on compensation claim against Rock View Hotel Limited for lacking merit.
The Court held that to grant the reliefs sought would open the door for double compensation and would be against the dictate of equitable principle.
From facts, the case of the claimant is that he was employed as a cook and worked for 3 years before his resignation. The claimant stated that on the 2/10/2015 while working in the kitchen he sustained an injury, rushed to the hospital, had an operation and resumed back to work, and maintained that the negligence of the firm led to the injury sustained.
The claimant stated that he received the sum of N34,467,12k in his Guarantee Trust Bank account, as disability benefit arrears for the period of December 2015 to May 2017, paid in by Nigerian social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF).
He alleged that he reported to the Human Rights Defenders and Advocacy Centre, who wrote a letter in 2015 to the firm and did nothing about the payment of compensation to him. Again he caused his solicitors to write to the defendants in 2017 demanding for compensation, all to no avail.
In opposition, the defendants denied any liability to the claimant that the injury sustained was caused by his negligence, that the claimant continued to receive his salary during the period of hospitalisation and when he resumed he was transferred to Human resources department.
Further that NSITF paid the claimant compensation and would continue to pay the claimant compensation for the injury up till when he is 55 years in accordance with Employees Compensation Act.
Defendant counsel J. OdomeEsq. argued that the court cannot assume jurisdiction because the defendants are not juristic persons that the omission of LIMITED or LTD in the name of the first defendant is not just a misnomer that can be rectified as it divests the firm of its corporateness and legal personality urged the court to dismiss the suit.
In reply, learned counsel to the claimant U. K. Omoke Esq argued that if the matter is struck out at this stage on account of not adding ‘limited’ to the name of the 1st defendant, the suit would have been sacrificed on the altar of technicality urged the court to discountenance the objection.
Delivering judgment, the presiding Judge, Justice Essien held that the argument of the defence counsel that failure to include the word ‘Limited’ at the name of the 1st defendant at the description of parties robs the court of jurisdiction is without any legal justification.
“It is a technical argument that must not be allowed to defeat the essence of doing substantive justice.
“The law of compensation for an injury sustained at the workplace have always been subject to the doctrine of election in labour law. The doctrine is that an employer who sustains an injury in a workplace has an option to either pursue his claim for compensation under the common law action for compensation for injury or to proceed under the Employee’s Compensation Act. Where he chooses one of the options, the other option can no longer be available to him. The doctrine of election is an enforcement of the equitable maxim that ‘equity leans against double portion’.
“This means that the option of an action in court to claim the compensation sought for in the reliefs of the claimant in this suit is no longer available to the claimant. This being the case the claims of the claimant in this action can therefore not be granted.
“This court, therefore, finds that the claims of the claimant cannot be granted. It is bound to fail and they are hereby dismissed.”
For Full Judgment, visit the Judgment’s portal
