IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT ABUJA

ON MONDAY 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE S. O. ADENIYI

SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/99/2020

BETWEEN:

NWODO NANCY……….……………………………… CLAIMANT

AND

NOLTE NIGERIA LIMITED………………………………… DEFENDANT

 

J U D G E M E N T

The Claimant commenced the instant action vide a Complaint and Statement of Facts filed on 05/06/2020 and by an Amended Complaint filed on 30/06/2022, by the leave of Court, her claims against the Defendant are set out as follows:

A.      A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to October, 2019 salary.

B.       A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to all the amount deducted                                    from the Claimant’s salary.

C.      An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Claimant the sum of N50, 000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) only, being the Claimant’s October 2019 salary.

D.      An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay forthwith to the Claimant the sum of N180,000.00 (One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) only being the amount deducted from the Claimant’s salaries from August 2018 to April 2019.

E.       An Order of this Honourable Court, directing the Defendant to pay

forthwith to the Claimant the sum of N200, 000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only being solicitors fees for this action.

F.       Cost of N200, 000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general                 damages.

2. The Claimant was an employee of the Defendant until she voluntarily resigned her appointment. While in the employment of the Defendant, she earned a monthly salary of N70,000.00 (Seventy Thousand Naira) and N840,000.00 (Eight Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira) only per annum. The Claimant alleged that from the month of November 2017 till April 2019, the Defendant made a part payment of N50,000 (Fifty Thousand) as her monthly salary with the understanding that the deducted sum of N20,000 (Twenty Thousand) would be paid later. She alleged that the deducted sum was not paid before she left the Defendant’s employment. According to the Claimant, the total of N360,000 (Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) remained unpaid and she further alleged that she was promised that the unpaid salary for the month of October 2019 would be paid. She contends that in spite of several demands, the Defendant has refused to make payment. As a result, she engaged the services of her solicitors who wrote to the Defendant to demand for the payment of the entire N410,000.00 being owed.

3. The Claimant tendered the following documents in support of her case namely:

          a.       Letter of Employment – Exhibit C1

          b.       Letter titled, “Slash of Salary” – Exhibit C2

          c.       Letter of Resignation – Exhibit C3

          d.       Letter of Demand by Claimant’s solicitors – Exhibits C4 and C4B

          e.       Defendant Solicitor’s Letter – Exhibit C4A

          f.        Reply to Query – Exhibit C5

          g.       Print Out of Whatsapp conversation – Exhibit C6

          h.       Receipt of payment of professional fees – Exhibit C7

4. The Defendant joined issues with the Claimant by the Amended Statement of

Defence filed by the leave of Court on 07/07/2022. The Defendant admitted that due to some economic challenges, deductions were made from the Claimant’s salary from the month of November 2017 to the month of July 2018 and that she was promised that the sum of N20,000 deducted from her salary for the period of nine months - from November 2017 to July 2018 would be paid to her. Consequent to the admission of this sum, a Summary Judgement was delivered in favor of the Claimant by this Honourable Court on the 29th June, 2021, wherein the Defendant was ordered to pay the sum of N180, 000, that is, N20,000 spanning over a period of nine months from November 2017 to July 2018; that in compliance with the Order of the Court, the Defendant has since liquidated the sum of N180,000 and the payment of the sum has been acknowledged by the Claimant.

5. Essentially, the Defendant’s defence is that the Claimant was hardly on her duty post which drastically affected her performance; that the Claimant breached a crucial term of her employment made with the Defendant by giving a one-day notice of her termination of the employment relationship as against the two weeks stipulated in her letter of employment; the Claimant’s failure to give the required notice actually caused the Defendant loss of earning and potential customers as there was no person to replace the vacant position created by reason of her urgent resignation.

6. The documents tendered by the Defendant to buttress its case are:

          a. Copy of Zenith Bank cheque issued to the Claimant – Exhibit D1

          b. Query – Exhibit D2

          c. Internal Memo titled, “Two days absence from work” – Exhibits D3 and D3A

          d. Letter titled, “Late coming” - Exhibit D3B

          e. Nolte Nigeia Staff Contract – Exhibit D4

7. In her Reply to the Statement of Defence, the Claimant maintained that the total amount deducted from her salary by the Defendant is N360,000.00 (Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira), covering for the period of 18 (eighteen) months; that

based on the Summary Judgement, the Defendant has paid the sum of N180,000.00

covering deduction for 9 months with an unpaid sum of N180,000.00 covering for deduction for 9 months, that is, from the months of August 2018 to April 2019.

8. The Claimant denied that there was a verbal communication to her regarding reduction of salary; that she saw the letter dated 7^th May, 2019 but that the reduction of salary as contained in the letter was to take effect on May 1, 2019 and this did not include the previous months. The Claimant asserts that it was through WhatsApp chat that the Managing Director of the Defendant, one Ronnie Mamza discovered that it was the salary of September 2019 and not October 2019 that was paid as her October salary and alleged that the said Ronnie assured her that the said arrears of October 2019 salary would be paid when other staff are being paid but the salary has not been paid till date.

9. According to the Claimant, she could not give the required two weeks’ notice to the Defendant because contrary to the terms of her employment, the Defendant unilaterally placed her on permanent duty on Saturdays; that having suffered for working on permanent basis on Saturdays and the refusal of the Defendant to reverse the breach of the terms of her employment, she resigned her appointment and handed over to one Kawu who was a Defendant’s staff.

10. At the close of trial, parties through their respective counsel filed and exchanged their written final addresses as prescribed by the provisions of Order 45 of the Rules of this Court. The Defendant’s counsel, Ugonna Afiadigwe Esq., formulated a sole issue as having arisen for determination in her written address filed on 19/02/2025, that is:

“Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as evidence before the Court, has the Claimant led sufficient evidence entitling her to the reliefs sought in this suit?”

In the final address filed on 10/03/2025, counsel for the Claimant, Nathaniel Adejinle

Esq., adopted the sole issue distilled by Defendant’s counsel in the determination of

the case.

11. In the light of the reliefs claimed by the Claimant, the evidence adduced by parties on record and the field of dispute between the parties, it is my view that the issue as formulated by Defendant’s counsel adequately covers the field of dispute in this suit and as such, the Court hereby adopts same in determining this suit. In proceeding to determine the issue I must state that I had carefully considered and taken due benefits of the totality of arguments canvassed by the respective counsel in their written final submissions; to which I shall endeavor to make specific reference as I consider needful in the course of this judgment.

12. Now, the law is still trite that the party who asserts has the onus or duty to prove his assertion or claim by adducing credible evidence. By Section 136 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proof in civil matters lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all was adduced on either side. Thus, the onus or burden lies on the Claimant to adduce credible evidence in proof of his claim, or defence, but strictly on the strength of his own case.  In other words, where a party fails to discharge this burden, then, the opponent need not prove any fact, and the party alleging cannot rely on the weakness of the opponent’s case. The imperative position of the law remains that he who asserts must prove.  See Larmie Vs DPMS Ltd [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt 958) 438; Onosigho Vs Glo & Anor [2016] LPELR 40496

13. I am also mindful that the Claimant’s claims in paragraph 26 (a) and (b) of the Amended Statement of Facts are declaratory reliefs. That being the case, the burden for her to prove the allegations leveled against the Defendant exceeds the regular burden provided in Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011. Specifically, in respect of an action for declaration, the Claimant must satisfy the Court by credible evidence that she is entitled to the reliefs she claims. Thus, the claim for a declaration cannot be granted merely in default of defence or upon an admission by the Defendant. Instead, a party who seeks declaratory reliefs is duty bound to succeed only on the strength of his case, without recourse to the Defendant’s case - See Mohammed Vs Wammako [2017] LPELR-42667(SC) 24; Andrew Vs INEC [2017] LPELR-48518(SC) 41; Ge Intl Operations Nig Ltd Vs Q Oil & Gas Services Ltd [2016] LPELR-47999(SC) 29-30; Kwajaffa Vs BON Ltd [2004] LPELR-1727(SC) 22.

14. It is apparent from the testimony of the Claimant that her claim for payment of the sum of N180,000 being sum allegedly deducted from her August 2018 to April 2019 salary, is based on the promise said to have been made to her by the Defendant to pay the money later. According to the Claimant, the total sum deducted from November 2017 to April 2019 is N360,000; that the Defendant had admitted deduction from November 2017 to July 2018 and that based on the Defendant’s admission, the sum of N180,000 had been paid by Order of this Court remaining an unpaid balance of N180,000. This claim was denied by the Defendant and Exhibit D4, the terms and condition executed by the Claimant on 23/07/2018 was tendered to buttress the defence. In the said Exhibit D4, it was agreed inter-alia, that the Management will cease to pay salaries and allowances; that the payment shall be based on commission from sales; that commission shall be pegged at 2.5% but may be reviewed at the discretion of the Management.

15. Now, it is settled law that where parties have entered into a contract or an agreement, they are bound by the provisions of the contract or agreement. This is because a party cannot ordinarily resile from a contract or agreement just because he/she later found that the conditions of the contract or agreement are not favorable to him/her. This is the whole essence of the doctrine of sanctity of contract or agreement. Where parties have reduced the terms and conditions of service into an agreement, the conditions must be observed. The Court is bound to construe the terms of the contract or agreement and the terms only, in the event of an action arising therefrom. His Lordship Nnaemeka - Agu, J.S.C opined; 

"That parties enjoy their freedom of contract carries with it the inevitable implication of sanctity of their contracts. This means that if any question should arise with respect to the contract, the terms in any documents which constitute the contract are invariably, the guide to its interpretation.”

See also Baba Vs Civil Aviation [1991] 2 NSCC 145 at 152; Oduye Vs Nigeria Airways Limited [1987] 2 NWLR (Pt 55) 126.

16. As enjoined, in the determination of the present case, the Court is bound to construe the terms as agreed by parties. While testifying under cross- examination, by the Defendant’s counsel, the Claimant admitted that she got the Memo (Exhibit D4) from the Defendant. The testimony of DW1under cross-examination is also that the document was issued by the Defendant to members of staff to go through and sign same if terms are accepted; that Exhibit D4 was signed by the Claimant; that the Claimant was on commission before Exhibit C2 (Letter of salary slash); that the Claimant did not make any sale and therefore not entitled to any commission. The Claimant testified that her duty was confined to the office and not sales marketing and as such Exhibit D4 was issued to her in error.

17. In her reply to query in Exhibit C5, the Claimant stated that the reason she came late to work was because it was easier and cheaper to see a potential client first before resuming to work. As correctly submitted by the Defendant’s counsel, by this testimony, it is implied that the Claimant was in sales marketing and her duty is not confined to the office as alleged. The Claimant is bound by the agreement she freely executed in Exhibit D4 and therefore not entitled to her claims for deduction for the sum of N180,000.00 from her salary. And I so hold.

18. The Claimant’s claim is also for the sum of N50,000 being October 2019 salary. In prove of this claim, Exhibit C6, a printout of Whatsapp chat between the Claimant and one Ronnie Mamza, the Manager of the Defendant was tendered in evidence.

In Thadani & Anor Vs National Bank of Nig Ltd & Anor (1972) 1 SC (Reprint) 75, [1972] LPELR 3147(SC) at 12, the Supreme Court Per Coker, JSC emphasized the duty of the Court to ascertain the existence of a right and debt as follows:

"It is the duty of a Court called upon to decide such an issue to study carefully the document on which reliance is placed by the Defendant and ascertain as best as it can whether the document by its contents does recognize the existence of a right or debt against the Defendant or indeed the existence of a right of recourse against himself. It is not necessary that the document should state the precise figure of the indebtedness. In Ajike Vs Cardoso & Anor [1939) 5 WACA 134 , it was observed that the Court would then turn to the letter written with a view to determining whether, according to the ordinary and the natural meaning of that letter, it contains either an expressed promise to pay or a clear acknowledgement of the debt and, in the latter case, whether the acknowledgement is coupled with words which prevent the implication of an unconditional promise.”

See also Andy Surveys Co (Nig) Ltd Vs Chevron (Nig) Ltd & Anor [2024] LPELR 62855

19. I had undertaken a careful examination of Exhibit C6, the Whatsapp chats of 04/11/2019 between Ronnie Mamza and the Claimant. The chats are reproduced as follows:

          Ronnie Mamza:

I have sent u ur October salary, when others are paid arrears ur payment will be sent.

Pls hand over tmrw all documents to Kawu, I wish u all the best!

Claimant:

Thank you ma, I appreciate it and know it’s can’t be easy paying staff salary when there isn’t constant sales.

But ma, I haven’t been paid September salary.

Ronnie Mamza:

U wait when others are paid they will send yours

So wht I sent is ur September salary then.

20. The Claimant predicated her case on the above statement of the said Ronnie (the Manager) of the Defendant. I agree with the submission of the Defendant’s counsel that the phrase, “So what I sent is your September salary then” on its own is not admission of indebtedness of the Claimant’s October salary as alleged. It does not recognize the existence of a right or debt against the Defendant.  Being declaratory relief, the Claimant has the burden to prove the allegation of non-payment of her salary leveled against the Defendant exceeds the regular burden provided in Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act 2011.  In other words, the Claimant has failed to discharge the burden to prove her claims against the Defendant. And I so hold.

21. On the basis of the foregoing analysis therefore, I must and I hereby resolve the sole issue for determination in this suit against the Claimant. It is therefore, the conclusion of the Court that the Claimant has failed to lead credible evidence in support of the reliefs claimed against the Defendant in this action.  Accordingly, it is the judgment of this Court that the Claimant’s claim is unmeritorious. It shall be and it is hereby accordingly dismissed.

Parties shall bear their respective costs.

 

SINMISOLA O. ADENIYI

(Hon. Judge)

21/07/2025

Legal representation:

Nathaniel Adejinle Esq., for Claimant

Ugonna Afiadigwe Esq., for Defendant