IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE AWKA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT AWKA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, PhD

 

DATE: 23 OCTOBER, 2025                  SUIT NO: NICN/ASB/16/2020

 

BETWEEN                                                       

Mr. Nkwuda Ogbonna                                -                  Claimant

 

AND

Eastern Metals Ltd.                                     -                  Defendant

 

REPRESENTATION

S.I. Nnanyere, Esq., for the Claimant.

S.O. Agu, Esq., for the Defendant.

 

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION

1.     This action was commenced by the Claimant by way of a Complaint dated and filed on the 15th day of May 2020. Accompanying the said Complaint are the Claimant’s Statement of Facts, List of Witnesses, Witness Statement on Oath, List of Documents to be relied upon at the trial, together with copies of the said documents.  By the said Complaint and Statement of Facts, the Claimant claims against the Defendant the following reliefs:

A.   A declaration that the Defendant breached the contract of employment as stated in the two Confirmation Letters dated 17th June 2013 and 7th January 2014, contrary to the provisions of the Employee Compensation Act.

B.   Special Damages (1st Set):

a)     The sum of ?1,011,900 (One Million, Eleven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) being the total sum expended by the Claimant for medical treatment as hospital bills from 6th November 2010 to 17th March 2020.

b)    The sum of ?1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as legal fees.

c)     The sum of ?547,500 (Five Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, Five Hundred Naira) as cost for dressing the leg injury from 18th March 2020 for three years at the rate of ?500 daily, or in the alternative, the sum of ?500 daily from 18th March 2020 until skin grafting is done.

d)    The sum of ?10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira) for each day this matter comes up in court.

e)     The sum of ?250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being salary arrears for five months (December 2019 to April 2020) at ?50,000 monthly, and continuing from May 2020 until judgment is delivered and executed.

C.   General Damages:

a.     The sum of ?3,000,000 (Three Million Naira) as general damages for the alleged act of neglect and negligence of the Defendant against the Claimant.

b.     The sum of ?10,000,000 (Ten Million Naira) as compensation from the Defendant, having worked faithfully as a confirmed permanent staff since 7th June 2013 until the Defendant sought to terminate the Claimant’s appointment.

c.      The sum of ?1,500,000 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as estimated expenses for transportation and related costs from Edo Ogwashi to Asaba for the purpose of dressing the leg injury from 18th March 2020 until final recovery.

d.     The sum of ?500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) as cost of this suit.

Such further or other orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

2.     The Claimant was employed by the Defendant since 2012, working diligently. On 6th November 2019, while on night duty, he was instructed by a supervisor named Kaman to operate a crane to transport yellow dust. While executing this task, Kaman allegedly operated a forklift that struck the Claimant’s leg causing serious injury. Following the accident, the Defendant took the Claimant to the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, where he was admitted to the Orthopaedic ward and underwent initial treatment including surgery on 10th November 2019. The Defendant paid an initial deposit of ?70,000 towards medical expenses. Thereafter, the Claimant remained hospitalized for several months. The hospital issued a formal bill totaling ?405,050 with an outstanding balance of ?315,050. The Claimant’s counsel wrote multiple letters demanding payment of medical bills and salary arrears. The Defendant disputed partial payments proposed by the Claimant’s representatives and insisted on a lump sum final settlement of ?750,000. The Claimant has not received his December 2019 salary and claims continued abandonment of medical treatment by the Defendant.

 

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

3.     The Claimant is an employee of the Defendant, having been initially employed in 2011 as a contract staff with a daily wage of ?1,400 as contained in his letter of offer. He avers that his appointment was later made permanent by a letter of appointment dated 17th June 2012, and subsequently confirmed by letters dated 17th June 2013 and 7th January 2014 respectively. The Defendant, according to the Claimant, is engaged in the manufacture of lead by melting battery components. Its factory is located at the boundary between Isele-Azagba and Edo Ogwashi-Uku, Delta State. The Claimant narrates that on the night of 6th November 2019, at about 10:00–11:00 p.m., while on night duty which commenced at 7:00 p.m. and was to end at 7:00 a.m. the next morning, he was working under the instruction of one Mr. Kaman, an expatriate supervisor. He was directed to use a crane to carry “yellow dust” from the oven area and deposit it at a designated corner. While carrying out this task, and as he had just dropped the load, Mr. Kaman, operating a forklift, struck the Claimant from behind. The impact caused him to fall to the ground and resulted in a fracture of his right leg. The Claimant states that upon confronting Mr. Kaman, the latter claimed he had not seen him. The Claimant was thereafter rushed to the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, where he was admitted in the Orthopaedic Department until his discharge on 17th March 2020. He asserts that while the Defendant initially paid for some drugs, it subsequently stopped payment and abandoned him at the hospital, leaving him to source for funds personally. The Claimant maintains that his monthly salary is ?50,000. He was paid in November 2019 but did not receive his December salary, except for the sum of ?5,000 allegedly sent as a Christmas gift. He further avers that the Defendant attempted to have his family sign a document titled “Full and Final Settlement of the Factory Accident Case” without first securing his medical recovery. Following the Defendant’s refusal to pay his December salary or cover his medical bills, the Claimant instructed his counsel, C.O. Egwuenu Esq., who wrote a letter of demand dated 7th January 2020. The Claimant claims he expended a total of ?855,000 on his treatment after the Defendant’s alleged abandonment. According to the Claimant, meetings were held on 31st January 2020 and 14th February 2020 at his counsel’s chambers, with the Defendant represented by its lawyer, one Agu Esq. Settlement proposals were discussed, and on the latter date, the Defendant offered ?750,000 as a full and final settlement, which the Claimant rejected. The Claimant alleges gross negligence against the Defendant and its agent, contending that the Defendant owed him a duty of care to provide a safe working environment and to cover medical expenses for injuries sustained in the course of his employment. He further pleads that the Defendant’s refusal to fund the recommended skin graft surgery costing ?310,000 was a breach of that duty. The Claimant provides detailed particulars of special damages amounting to ?2,011,900, including hospital bed charges, feeding, surgery costs, drugs, discharge fees, salary arrears, and legal fees. He also seeks ?10,000,000 as general damages for negligence, in addition to other specific claims for ongoing medical expenses, transportation costs, and the cost of the suit. The Claimant contends that due to the injury, he is unable to work either in the Defendant’s factory or in his personal farming business, thereby rendering him unable to cater for his wife and eight children, whose educational and welfare needs have been jeopardized. He pleads photographs of his injuries and asserts that without the skin graft, his recovery may take two to three years, during which he would require daily dressing at ?500 per day.

 

DEFENDANT’S CASE

4.     The case of the Defendant, as contained in the Statement of Defence, is that it is an aluminum manufacturing company with its address at Asaba–Benin Expressway, Issele Azagba, Delta State. The Defendant denies that there is any person by the name “Mr. Kaman” in its employment who has the authority to issue directives to the Claimant in the ordinary course of his work or who works in the same department as the Claimant. The Defendant avers that although there was a “Mr. Kaman” who once worked with the Defendant, he was assigned to a different department from that of the Claimant, and the Claimant did not take instructions from him. The Defendant states that on 6th November 2019, while the said Mr. Kaman was operating a forklift within the premises, the Claimant entered the area and, in the process, struck his leg against the forklift. It is the Defendant’s case that Mr. Kaman did not hit the Claimant, as he had not expected the Claimant to be in that part of the premises, and both were not working in the same department at the time. It was only after Mr. Kaman had driven past and the Claimant started shouting that it became apparent that he had injured himself. The Defendant contends that the injury was caused by the contributory negligence of the Claimant and did not arise in the course of his assigned duties. The forklift’s position was outside the Claimant’s work area, and the Claimant struck it from behind after it had already moved past. The Claimant, according to the Defendant, failed to maintain a proper lookout and was on a “frolic of his own” at the time of the incident. The Defendant asserts that upon the occurrence of the accident, it promptly took the Claimant to the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, for immediate medical attention, and paid all the hospital bills and related costs. The Defendant maintains that it continued to pay for the Claimant’s treatment, including the purchase of drugs, and will rely on receipts to that effect. The Defendant further avers that the Claimant’s basic salary is ?13,000 per month, with other allowances paid in line with his letter of appointment. It states that the ?5,000 paid to the Claimant was a Christmas bonus and that an agreement referred to by the Claimant as “full and final settlement of the factory accident case” was reached following an oral agreement. According to the Defendant, while it offered ?750,000 to the Claimant for skin grafting and other expenses, the Claimant rejected the offer, insisting instead on ?1.5 million for an estimated four months’ treatment. The Defendant denies refusing to pay the Claimant’s salary and asserts that a letter from the Claimant’s solicitor dated 7th January 2020 contained misrepresentations, which it addressed in a reply dated 13th January 2020. The Defendant states that the Claimant thereafter reneged on the earlier agreement and refused to sign it. The Defendant maintains that it is not liable in damages or negligence, disputes the expenses claimed by the Claimant. It avers that it has at all times borne the Claimant’s medical expenses, provided a safe working environment, and conducted periodic safety lessons for staff. The Defendant further states that upon learning of the accident, it notified the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) and obtained the necessary forms for compensation, but the Claimant refused to sign them despite repeated requests and even after the forms were sent to him via courier on 8th July 2020. The Defendant insists it offered more than sufficient funds for the surgery, but the Claimant refused and instead discharged himself from hospital to file this suit. It maintains that the Claimant failed to exhaust internal mechanisms for claiming entitlements before approaching the court and urges that the claims are frivolous, vexatious, and should be dismissed.

 

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT

5.     The Claimant submitted two issues for determination as follows:

a.       Whether the Claimant has proved his case on the Preponderance of Evidence as Required by Law.

b.       Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

 

ISSUE 1: Whether the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence as required by law in civil cases.

6.     Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence. It was submitted that the Claimant’s oral testimony was credible, consistent and unshaken under cross-examination and that the oral evidence was corroborated by documentary evidence tendered in Court — notably the letters of confirmation of employment dated 17th June 2013 and 7th January 2014 and the medical bills and receipts for treatment and dressing of the injured leg. Counsel relied on the following authorities on the general proposition that a claimant must prove his case on the balance of probabilities: Davies & Anor v. Governor of Ekiti State & Anor (2018) LPELR-46372(CA); Owena Mass Transportation Co. Ltd v. Okonogbo (2018) LPELR-45221(CA); Sogunro & Ors v. Yeku & Ors (2017) LPELR-41905(SC); Monguno v. Gadobe & Ors (2018) LPELR-45383(CA); and Orianzi v. A.G., Rivers State & Ors (2017) LPELR-41737.

 

7.     It was further submitted that the Defendant produced nothing to challenge the Claimant’s evidence beyond pleadings. That the law is settled that pleadings do not and cannot take the place of evidence. Citing Okonkwo v. Zurmi & Anor (2018) LPELR-46855(CA); Kuti v. Alashe (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 955) 625; WAEC v. Oshionebo (2007) All FWLR (370) 1501; Osigwelem v. INEC (2011) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1252) 456.

 

8.     Counsel pointed to material admissions in the Defendant’s pleadings which, it was urged, require no further proof. On the principle that facts admitted need no further proof, reliance was placed on: Sabru Ltd v. Rayab Ltd (2002) 10 NSCQR Pt. 1 p.120 at p.123; Asafa Ltd v. Alraine Ltd & Anor (2002) 10 NSCQR 553 at 557; and UBA v. Jargaba (2007) All FWLR Pt. 380 p.1419 at p.1423. It was submitted that the Defendant breached the duty of care owed to the Claimant by abandoning him at the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba after an initial deposit of ?70,000, and only after this suit was filed did the Defendant bring NSITF forms to the Claimant. The Defendant gave no credible evidence to substantiate its allegation that the Claimant refused to sign NSITF forms or that NSITF had paid the Claimant.

 

9.     Learned counsel urged the Court to strike out unsupported averments in the Defendant’s pleadings. The settled authority is that where averments are not supported by evidence, they are deemed abandoned. He cited: Awolugbabe Light Industry Ltd v. Chinukwe (1995) 5 NWLR (Pt. 390) 379; Olarewaju v. Bamigbove (1987) 3 NWLR (Pt. 60) 353; Olubodun & Ors v. Lawal (2008) 6 SCNJ 269; Anya v. Imo Concord Hotel Ltd & Ors (2002) 12 SCNJ 14; and Kaydee Ventures Ltd v. Minister, FCT (2010) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1192) 171.

 

10.            That, the Claimant’s evidence remains largely unchallenged and uncontroverted on material points; the Court may act on such evidence. Cited also Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) All FWLR Pt. 528 p.839 at p.851; State v. Oladotun (2011) All FWLR Pt. 586 p.399 at p.410; Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund v. Integrated Facility Management Services Ltd (2003) All FWLR Pt. 155 p.738 at p.745; and Yakubu v. PHCN Plc (2012) All FWLR Pt. 616 p.529 at pp.540–541.

 

11.            On the law of employer’s duty of care, reliance was placed on: Merchantile Bank v. Abusomwan (1986) 2 NWLR (Pt. 22); Nigerian Bottling Co. Ltd v. Ngonadi (1985) 5 SC 317; Ifeanyi Chukwu Ltd v. Soreh Boneh Ltd (2000) FWLR Pt. 27 pp.2070–2071; and Makwe v. Nwokor (2001) FWLR Pt. 1 at 16. Where an employer breaches that duty, the appropriate remedy is an award of damages. See: Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria v. Ozoemena (2000) LLJR-CA and Edward Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji & Anor (2008) LLJR-SC.

 

12.            For the reasons above, the Claimant urged the Court to hold that he has discharged the burden of proof on a preponderance of evidence and to resolve Issue One in his favour.

 

On ISSUE 2: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed.

13.            Learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted that, upon a consideration of the evidence before this Honourable Court and the exhibits tendered, the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this action. Counsel referred to Exhibits CW1–CW3, being the Claimant’s letter of appointment and related documents, which establish that the Claimant was a confirmed staff and employee of the Defendant. It was argued that, having successfully proved the reliefs sought, the Claimant is entitled to judgment in his favour.

 

14.            Counsel drew attention to paragraph 4(a–c) of the Defendant’s Statement of Defence, wherein the Defendant admitted that one Mr. Kannan was an employee of the Defendant, operated a forklift in its premises, and that it was while the forklift was being operated that the Claimant sustained injury. Learned Counsel submitted that this amounts to an admission that the Claimant was indeed an employee of the Defendant and that he suffered serious injury while carrying out his duties in the Defendant’s premises. Such an admission, it was argued, renders the Defendant liable to the reliefs sought by the Claimant in his Statement of Claim, supported by his evidence and that of his witness before this Court.

 

15.            It was further submitted that it is the duty of an employer to ensure that the workplace is safe for its employees. In the present case, the Defendant failed in that duty of care owed to the Claimant, thus entitling him to the reliefs claimed. Counsel further submitted that, the Defendant having admitted being the Claimant’s employer, there exists a binding contract of employment between them, as evidenced by Exhibits CW1–CW3. That it is trite law that parties are bound by their agreements and that an employer cannot be allowed to renege from the obligations, responsibilities, and liabilities arising therefrom. In support of this proposition, Counsel relied on Living Faith Church Worldwide Inc & Ors v. Superior Choice (Nig.) Ltd & Anor (2019) LPELR-46501 (CA) Ratio 1; MTN Communications Ltd v. Amadi (2012) LPELR-21276 (CA); Cameroon Airlines v. M.E. Otutuiuzu (2011) LPELR-SC 217/2004; Pan Bisbilder (Nigeria) Ltd v. First Bank of Nigeria Ltd (2000) 1 SC 71; Swiss-Nigerian Wood v. Boco (1970) LPELR–SC 1470 Pg. 14 Ratio 1 Paras A–C; and Haidar v. Berini Bank Ltd (1963) 1 All NLR 142–143.

 

16.            Counsel further referred to Exhibits CW4–CW2 and DW1–DW10, which show that the Claimant was injured in the Defendant’s employment. It was contended that the Defendant took the Claimant to FMC, Asaba, but thereafter abandoned him, failing, refusing, and neglecting to pay the hospital bills upon his discharge. The surgical grafting required for the Claimant’s injury has not been performed to date, and the Claimant is being sustained by CW2 (his wife). Counsel argued that the Defendant’s failure to provide for the upkeep of the Claimant, his wife, and seven children attracts an award of damages. Reference was made to paragraph 22 of the Claimant’s deposition and paragraphs 15–16 of CW2’s deposition, both made on 15/5/2020, which evidence, it was submitted, remains unchallenged and uncontroverted. Learned Counsel urged the Court to act on such unchallenged evidence, citing Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 528) 839 at 851; State v. Oladotun (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 586) 399 at 410 Paras E, Ratio 5; and Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund v. Integrated Facility Management Services Ltd (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 155) 738 at 745 Paras G–H, Ratio 1.

 

17.            On the strength of these facts and authorities, Counsel urged the Court to resolve Issue Two in favour of the Claimant and to grant all the reliefs sought.

 

DEFENDANT’S WRITTEN SUBMISSION

18.            The Defendant, in its Final Written Address, distilled for the consideration of this Honourable Court the following issues for determination:

       i.            Whether from the totality of evidence adduced before this Honourable Court, the Defendant breached the contract of employment it had with the Claimant contrary to the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010.

     ii.            Whether the plaintiff from the totality of evidence before this Honourable court has proved his case against the Defendant as to be entitled to his claim.

 

On Issue 1: Whether from the totality of evidence adduced before this Honourable Court, the Defendant breached the contract of employment it had with the Claimant contrary to the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010.

19.            Learned Counsel for the Defendant began by submitting that the starting point in determining whether a breach of contract has occurred is to consider the contract of employment binding the parties. Counsel referred the Court to Section 133(1) of the Evidence Act, 2011, which provides that the burden of proof lies on the party who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side. In civil matters, it is not enough to allege; the claimant must establish his case on credible evidence and cannot rely solely on the perceived weakness of the defence. Counsel cited Diamond Bank Ltd v. Mocok Onu Nig Ltd (2019) All FWLR (Pt. 1001) 718 to emphasize that the onus is squarely on the claimant to prove the alleged breach.

 

20.            Counsel stressed that the contract of employment is the foundation upon which the rights, duties, and obligations of the parties rest. Such a contract, especially when reduced into writing, clearly spells out the terms and conditions of service, including duties, working hours, wages, allowances, benefits, and the applicable disciplinary procedure. The Court is bound to look strictly at the express terms contained therein and not import extraneous matters. In support of this proposition, Counsel relied on Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364 at 378–379 and Omega Bank (Nig) Ltd v. O.B.C. Ltd (2005) 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547, where the appellate courts held that where the terms of a contract are documented, the duty of the court is limited to interpreting and enforcing such terms without deviation.

 

21.            According to Counsel, the key contractual documents in this case are Exhibits CW1, CW2, and CW3. Exhibit CW1 is the Appointment Letter issued to the Claimant on 17 June 2012; Exhibit CW2 is the Letter of Confirmation of Appointment as Permanent Worker dated 17 June 2013; and Exhibit CW3 is the Letter of Confirmation of Appointment dated 7 January 2014. These exhibits collectively govern the employment relationship between the parties.

 

22.            Counsel drew the Court’s attention particularly to paragraph 11 of Exhibits CW1 and CW2, which provides in identical terms:

“In case of an accident occurring while at work, the company will be liable only to the net amount claimed from insurers as provided by the Workmen Compensation Decree.”

 

23.            Learned Counsel submitted that by this clause, the provisions of the then Workmen Compensation Decree, now replaced by the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 (“ECA 2010”), were expressly incorporated into the contract of employment. Thus, the rights and obligations of both parties in relation to workplace injuries are governed by the ECA 2010. Counsel referred the Court to Sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Act, which lay down the procedure for reporting workplace injuries, the responsibilities of the employer, and the entitlement of the employee to compensation through the Nigerian Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF).

 

24.            It was the Defendant’s case, through Counsel, that it complied fully with its obligations under the ECA 2010. Upon the occurrence of the accident, the Claimant was immediately taken to the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, for urgent medical attention. The Defendant paid an initial deposit of ?70,000.00 to commence treatment, in addition to paying for the Claimant’s prescribed medications. In compliance with the statutory provisions, the Defendant promptly notified the NSITF, obtained and completed the requisite forms, and initiated the Claimant’s compensation process. Counsel pointed out that the Claimant himself admitted, under cross-examination, to signing the said NSITF forms after consulting with his legal counsel.

 

25.            Furthermore, Counsel narrated that the Defendant’s legal representative visited the Claimant in the hospital, accompanied by the Claimant’s counsel, and that various correspondences (Exhibits CW5, CW6, CW8, and CW10) between the parties demonstrate the Defendant’s concern for the Claimant’s welfare. Exhibits CW7 and CW9 showed the proposals and counter-proposals exchanged in respect of the Claimant’s expenses. Negotiations were ongoing and had not broken down when the Claimant commenced this suit.

 

26.            Learned Counsel argued that the above facts, many of which were expressly admitted by the Claimant, require no further proof in law, citing Akibu v. Odutan (1992) 2 NWLR (Pt. 222) 210. In Counsel’s view, there was no breach of contract, but rather, evidence of the Defendant’s strict compliance with both the contractual terms and statutory provisions.

 

27.            On the question of jurisdiction, Counsel referred to Section 54 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), submitting that although the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) has jurisdiction over matters relating to the ECA 2010, such jurisdiction is largely appellate in nature. Relying on Maduka v. Earth Moving International Limited & Anor (2013) 33 NLLR (Pt. 95) 297 at 332 paras. F–G, Counsel argued that the ECA 2010 envisages an initial recourse to the NSITF Board before any approach to the NICN. Section 55(4) of the ECA expressly provides that appeals lie from the decisions of the Board to the NICN. The Claimant, however, bypassed this statutory process, even though the Defendant had already engaged the Board and commenced the compensation procedure with the Claimant’s knowledge and participation. Counsel therefore urged the Court to hold that the Defendant did not breach the contract of employment, and that the Claimant’s case on this issue is without merit.

 

28.            On the second issue: Whether the plaintiff from the totality of evidence before this Honourable court has proved his case against the Defendant as to be entitled to his claim.  Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant’s reliefs must fail because they are not supported by credible and cogent evidence. It is a settled principle of law that a claimant seeking declaratory and monetary reliefs must succeed on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence. The Claimant has not demonstrated, either through oral or documentary evidence, that the Defendant failed in any contractual or statutory duty.

 

29.            Counsel reiterated that the Defendant complied with its obligations under both the contract of employment and the ECA 2010 by paying the Claimant’s medical expenses, notifying the NSITF, commencing the compensation process, and engaging in genuine negotiations towards a settlement. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Defendant acted negligently, unlawfully, or in breach of its obligations. It was further argued that the reliefs claimed are speculative in nature. The Court, Counsel stressed, is bound by law not to grant reliefs based on conjecture, assumptions, or sympathy for a party, no matter how pitiable his condition may appear. Reliefs must be grounded in proven facts and the applicable law. In the absence of such proof, Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue against the Claimant and to dismiss the entirety of his claims as lacking in merit.

 

DEFENDANTS REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

30.            Learned counsel for the Defendant, in addressing the allegation that the Defendant abandoned the Claimant in hospital and only sought to “pay him off” during the pendency of this suit, submitted that such assertions are contrary to the evidence on record. Counsel pointed out that addresses of counsel, no matter how persuasive, cannot take the place of evidence, citing Access Bank Plc v. K.C. Intl. Ltd (2018) LPELR-43668 (CA).

 

31.            It was contended that under cross-examination, the Claimant made several material admissions, including that: He was immediately rushed to the hospital upon sustaining injury, with the Defendant depositing money for his treatment and upkeep. While at the hospital, the Defendant’s counsel visited him to ascertain his condition. Exhibits CW5, CW6, CW8, and CW10 — correspondences between counsel for both parties regarding the Claimant’s welfare — were tendered by the Claimant himself. He signed the NSITF forms procured by the Defendant and sent to him after consultation with his lawyer. He rejected an offer of ?750,000.00 made by the Defendant (Exhibit CW7) on the ground that it was a payoff, and instead demanded ?1,500,000.00 (Exhibit CW9). Exhibits CW7 and CW9 predated the institution of this suit, contrary to his assertion that they were made during the proceedings. This suit was filed while discussions regarding his welfare were still ongoing. He discharged himself from the hospital without the Defendant’s knowledge and neither reported back to work nor was he dismissed. He admitted Exhibits DW1–DW29, being receipts for drugs and supplies purchased by the Defendant during his admission. On the basis of these admissions, learned counsel argued that the Defendant had successfully rebutted the Claimant’s allegations of abandonment or neglect, and urged the Court to so hold.

 

32.            On the Allegation of Negligence Learned counsel recalled that the Claimant had pleaded negligence against the Defendant as the cause of his injury, but that the Defendant, in its pleadings and through DW1, denied same and averred particulars of contributory negligence. Counsel noted that DW1’s testimony on the following points was not challenged under cross-examination:

             i.            The forklift operated by one Mr. Kaman was in a different position from where the Claimant was working.

           ii.            The Claimant struck the forklift from behind after it had passed him.

        iii.            The Claimant failed to keep a proper lookout for danger.

        iv.            He was not assigned to operate the crane at that time.

           v.            He was on a frolic of his own when the accident occurred.

 

33.            It was submitted that the failure to cross-examine on these material allegations amounted to acceptance, relying on Isaac Gaji & Ors v. Emmanuel Paye (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt.823) 583 at 605. Counsel further argued that the Claimant’s assertion that Mr. Kaman was drunk was unsupported by any evidence, and that by virtue of Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011, he who asserts must prove.

 

34.            Reference was also made to B.J. Ngilari v. Mothercat Ltd (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt.636) 626 at 643 for the principle that mere occurrence of an accident is not proof of negligence, and that a claimant must establish that the defendant’s negligence caused the accident. It was counsel’s submission that the Claimant had failed to prove: that the Defendant did not provide a safe working environment; that the Defendant failed to provide adequate supervision; that the Defendant lacked appropriate safety mechanisms; that the Defendant failed to provide adequate protective clothing and equipment; or that any act or omission of the Defendant was linked to the injury.

 

35.            Counsel emphasized that the Claimant must rely on the strength of his own case and not the weakness of the defence, citing Health Care Products (Nig.) Ltd v. Bozza (2004) 3 NWLR (Pt.861) 582 at 605–606.

 

36.            On the question of compensation, learned counsel noted the Claimant’s admission that the parties’ relationship was governed by Exhibits CW1, CW2, and CW3, which contained express provisions in paragraph 11 limiting the Defendant’s liability in case of workplace accidents to “the net amount claimed from insurers as provided by the Workmen Compensation Decree” (now the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010).

 

37.            Counsel submitted that by Sections 21 and 22 of the ECA 2010, claims for permanent partial disability are to be determined in the first instance by the Management Board of the National Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF), with appeal rights thereafter. As the Claimant did not exhaust this statutory process before approaching the Court, it was argued that the suit was premature, citing Abonyi Agbo Geofrey v. Dangote Agrosacks Ltd (Unreported, NICN Judgment, 7 December 2017, per Kanyip PNICN).

 

38.            It was finally submitted, relying on Nasko & Anor v. Bello & Ors (2020) LPELR-52530 (SC), that the Claimant cannot approbate and reprobate — having accepted the ECA regime in his contract, he cannot now seek remedies outside it. Counsel accordingly urged the Court to dismiss the suit for want of jurisdiction and for failure to prove negligence.

 

CLAIMANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW

39.            On Issue One, which is whether, from the totality of the evidence before the Court, the Defendant breached the contract of employment it had with the Claimant contrary to the Employee Compensation Act 2010, learned counsel for the Claimant contended that, notwithstanding the attempt by the Defendant to shift responsibility for the Claimant’s compensation to the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF) or an insurance company, the Court ought to take cognisance of the fact that the cause of action in this suit arose in 2019, whereas the suit itself was instituted in 2020.

 

40.            It was submitted that, assuming without conceding that it is indeed the insurance company that is liable to settle the Claimant as the Defendant has argued, the pertinent question is: how long does it take an insurance company to pay the victim of an accident? Learned counsel stressed that, in this instance, a period of six (6) years has elapsed and the Defendant has still not processed or facilitated the Claimant’s claim in line with its contention. Counsel argued that, even on the Defendant’s own showing, if it was truly the responsibility of the insurance company to pay the Claimant his final entitlements, there would have been no need for the Defendant to have agreed to pay such entitlements itself, as evidenced in Exhibit CW4. Counsel submitted that this contradictory posture — attempting to absolve itself of liability on one hand, while making undertakings to pay on the other — amounts to approbating and reprobating at the same time. In support, counsel cited Ebeke & Anor. v. Egwu & Ors. (2020) LCN/14771/CA; Nasko & Anor. v. Bello & Ors. (2020) LPELR-52530(SC); and A.G. Rivers State v. A.G. Federation & Anor (2022) LPELR-57708(SC).

 

41.            It was further argued that the Defendant, having taken the Claimant — its own staff — to the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, following the accident on its premises, thereafter abandoned him and his family, despite their appeals for assistance. Counsel submitted that the Defendant’s subsequent decision to offer what it termed “full and final settlement” amounts to a waiver of any right it may have had under the Employee Compensation Act, 2010, if such right were even applicable in the present case. Counsel stressed that, if indeed it was the insurance company’s responsibility to bear the costs, the Defendant ought to have informed the Claimant and his family — particularly his wife (CW2) and other relatives — from the outset that it was not the Defendant’s duty to fund the Claimant’s hospital expenses. Instead, the Defendant led them to believe otherwise, thereby creating legitimate expectations which it is now seeking to avoid.

 

42.            Learned counsel further submitted that Exhibit CW4 presupposes that the Claimant’s employment had been terminated, or was deemed terminated, whilst the Claimant was still hospitalised and struggling for survival. Counsel posed the rhetorical question: does an insurance company pay damages for wrongful termination? The answer, he submitted, is clearly in the negative. The insurance company’s role is confined to paying compensation for accidents, not the full termination benefits to which the Claimant is entitled. It was argued that, by its actions, the Defendant either intended to terminate the Claimant’s employment or had indeed terminated it while he was still in hospital, thus attracting liability beyond any claim under the Employee Compensation Act. In support, counsel relied on Risikatu James Y. Ogbara v. Ganiyu Afolabi & Ors NGHC 10 (1970); Polycarp Danladi v. Nasir El Rufai (2018) All FWLR (Pt. 924) 118; Yadis Nigeria Limited v. Great Nigeria Insurance Company Limited (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1055) 584; and Lawali v. State (2019) LPELR-46405(SC).

 

43.            Finally, counsel urged the Court to discountenance the authorities of Maduka v. Earth Moving International Limited & Anor (2013) (supra) and Akibu v. Odutan (1992) (supra) as cited by the Defendant, on the basis that the present case concerns both the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment and the issue of full and final settlement of his entitlements — matters which go beyond the narrow scope of occupational accidents or hazards as canvassed by the Defendant. Counsel therefore urged the Court to resolve Issue One in favour of the Claimant.

 

44.            On the second issue, learned counsel for the Claimant, while conceding the position of the law as restated by the defence in Odi v. Ivala (2004) (supra), submitted that the authority correctly represents the settled principle that Nigerian courts have a duty to evaluate the evidence adduced by both parties and to render judgment in favour of that party in whose favour the scale of justice tilts. Counsel further concedes the authorities of M.O. Kanu Sons & Co. Ltd v. FBN D.K (2006) (supra) and UTB (Nig.) v. Ozoemena (2007) (supra), as cited by learned counsel to the Defendant, on the point that in an action founded on negligence, the claimant bears the onus of establishing three essential elements, namely: that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care; that the duty of care was breached; and that the breach occasioned damage to the claimant.

 

45.            It was the submission of learned counsel that the Claimant, in the present case, had sufficiently discharged this burden. Counsel argued that the evidence, as set out in paragraphs 16–20 of the Claimant’s Statement on Oath filed on 15th May, 2020, clearly establishes that one Mr. Kariman, an employee of the Defendant, drove a forklift in a careless manner and struck the Claimant from behind, causing injury. Counsel contended that the Defendant’s own conduct after the incident corroborates the Claimant’s case, in that the Defendant took the Claimant to the hospital, made a deposit of seventy thousand naira (?70,000.00), and purchased some drugs for the Claimant for about one week. However, the Defendant thereafter refused to bear the cost of the skin grafting procedure recommended by the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba, which would have enabled proper treatment of the Claimant’s injured leg.

 

46.            Learned counsel further submitted that the Defendant went on to disengage the Claimant from its employment, while at the same time proposing a “full and final settlement” of the Claimant’s entitlements. The Claimant has not undergone the recommended grafting till date, and the injury has, according to counsel, incapacitated him. These pieces of evidence, counsel argued, were neither challenged nor controverted by the Defendant, and should therefore be accepted by the Court as established facts. In support of this position, counsel relied on the authorities of Chabasaya v. Anwasi (2010) All FWLR (Pt. 528) 839 at 851 paras. C–D, ratio 6; State v. Oladotun (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 586) 399 at 410 para. E, ratio 5; Petroleum (Special) Trust Fund v. Integrated Facility Management Services Ltd (2003) All FWLR (Pt. 155) 738 at 745 paras. G–H, ratio 1; and Yakubu v. PHCN Plc (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 616) 529 at 540–541, ratio 2.

 

47.            On the general principles governing negligence and the breach of duty of care, learned counsel further placed reliance on Anyah v. Imo Concorde Hotels Ltd & Ors (2002) 18 NWLR (Pt. 799) 377 and Nigerian Airways Ltd v. Abe (1988) 4 NWLR (Pt. 90) 524.

 

48.            On the third issue, counsel argued that the Statement of Defence filed by the Defendant on 20th July, 2020, as well as the Defendant’s Final Written Address dated 19th November, 2024, were incompetent in law, having not been affixed with the seal and stamp of the legal practitioner who endorsed them. Counsel referred to Rule 10 of the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, which provides that:

“A lawyer acting in his capacity as a legal practitioner, legal officer, or adviser of any government department, etc., shall not sign or file a legal document unless there is affixed on any such document a seal and stamp approved by the Nigerian Bar Association.”

 

49.            It was the submission of counsel that the absence of the mandatory seal and stamp renders such processes incompetent and liable to be struck out. Consequently, counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Statement of Defence and the Defendant’s Final Written Address, and to expunge the Statement of Defence from the record. If this is done, counsel argued, there would be no defence before the Court, and in such a situation, minimal proof is required of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant had, in any event, adduced credible and sufficient evidence in support of his claims, and therefore urged the Court to grant all the reliefs sought in the suit.

 

COURT’S DECISION

50.            Having carefully considered the pleadings, the evidence adduced, and the oral testimonies of witnesses, this Court is convinced that the following issues are essential and require determination for the resolution of this suit:

1.       Whether the Claimant sustained injuries arising from and in the course of employment.

2.       Whether the Defendant fulfilled its statutory and contractual obligations regarding medical treatment and salary payments.

3.       Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed and if so, to what extent.

 

ISSUE 1: WHETHER THE CLAIMANT SUSTAINED INJURIES ARISING FROM AND IN THE COURSE OF HIS EMPLOYMENT WITH THE DEFENDANT

51.            The primary factual contention in this matter revolves around the circumstances that led to the injury sustained by the Claimant, Mr. Nkwuda Ogbonna, and whether the injury arose out of and in the course of his employment with the Defendant, Eastern Metals Limited.

 

52.            From the evidence before the court, it is established that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant from the year 2012 until the date of the incident on November 6, 2019. The Claimant’s employment was in the capacity of a factory worker or operative involved in manual handling duties, as reflected in the pleadings and corroborated by the witness testimonies and the documentary exhibits tendered.

 

53.            The material facts as to the incident are uncontroverted. According to Exhibit CW13 and corroborated by the Claimant’s oral testimony, on the night of November 6, 2019, while performing his duties under the instructions of a supervisor identified as Kaman (an Indian expatriate), the Claimant was instructed to use a crane to carry yellow dust from the oven and drop it in a corner of the room. During this process, the supervisor allegedly used a forklift that struck the Claimant’s leg, causing him to fall and sustain a serious injury.

 

54.            The Defendant did not deny the occurrence of the incident or the injury sustained by the Claimant. Instead, their defense appears to hinge on disputing liability for the accident. However, the Defendant’s acknowledgment of having paid for the initial medical treatment, as well as the correspondence with the Claimant’s counsel (Exhibits CW6, CW8, and CW10), effectively confirms that the injury was a workplace accident related to the Claimant’s duties.

 

55.            From a legal perspective, the principle governing employer liability for workplace injuries is well-settled in Nigerian law. Section 16 of the Factories Act (Cap F1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria) imposes a duty on employers to provide a safe working environment and to be responsible for injuries sustained by employees arising out of and in the course of their employment.

 

56.            Furthermore, under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 (ECA), an employer is liable to compensate employees who suffer injury or disablement arising from occupational accidents or diseases incurred in the course of their employment. The Claimant’s injury, sustained while performing a specific work task under direct instruction during working hours, squarely falls within the scope of the Act. In the case of Adetona v. Edet (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 899) 338 It was held as follows: By virtue of section 25(1) of the Workmen's Compensation Act, Cap. 470, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 1990, where an injury is caused by the personal negligence or wilful act of the employer or of some other person for whose act or default the employer is responsible, nothing in the Act shall prevent proceedings to recover damages being instituted against the employer in a civil court independently of the Act. Section 25(1) is on liability to an injured workman. In the instant case, the 1st respondent did not bring his action under the Act but in common law for damages for the negligence of his employer.

 

57.            Thus, the evidence adduced before this court convincingly establishes that the Claimant sustained injuries arising from and in the course of his employment with the Defendant. The injury was neither remote nor incidental but was directly connected to the Claimant’s duties. Accordingly, the court answers Issue 1 in the affirmative.

 

58.            ISSUE TWO: WHETHER THE DEFENDANT FULFILLED ITS STATUTORY AND CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS REGARDING MEDICAL TREATMENT AND SALARY PAYMENTS. The heart of this issue lies in determining whether the Defendant, Eastern Metals Limited, complied with its statutory duties under Nigerian labor and compensation laws, as well as its contractual responsibilities as the employer of the Claimant, Mr. Nkwuda Ogbonna.

 

59.            Under Nigerian law, employers have clear statutory obligations to their employees, especially regarding health and safety, payment of remuneration, and compensation for workplace injuries.

 

60.            The Labour Act, Cap L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, Section 17, stipulates that every employer shall pay wages due to employees promptly and without unauthorized deductions. The evidence before the court shows that the Defendant withheld the Claimant’s salary for December 2019 (Exhibit CW13). No lawful justification for this withholding has been tendered by the Defendant. The Defendant’s failure to pay the Claimant his full salary constitutes a breach of its statutory duty to ensure timely payment of wages.

 

61.            The Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, also sets out the employer’s liability to compensate employees for injuries sustained in the course of employment. Section 16 of the Act mandates employers or their insurance to cover medical treatment costs, including hospital bills and rehabilitation expenses.

 

62.            The Claimant suffered a severe injury while on duty on November 6, 2019 (Exhibit CW13). Although the Defendant made initial payments toward medical expenses (Exhibit CW12), they abandoned further medical treatment funding as early as late 2019, failing to cover subsequent surgeries and ongoing medical care. Correspondence from both parties (Exhibits CW6, CW8, CW10) reveals the Defendant’s attempt to impose a “full and final settlement” before ensuring the Claimant’s recovery—a position the court finds unconscionable and contrary to the statutory duty to provide ongoing medical care.

 

63.            The Defendant drew the Court’s attention to paragraph 11 of Exhibits CW1 and CW2, which provides in identical terms:

"In case of an accident occurring while at work, the company will be liable only to the net amount claimed from insurers as provided by the Workmen Compensation Decree."

 

64.            The Court finds this clause unavailing. While the contract may purport to limit liability to the insurance payout, statutory obligations under the Employees’ Compensation Act and common law duties of care cannot be waived by private agreement. The Defendant remained duty-bound to ensure that the Claimant received medical treatment and remuneration as required by law, regardless of any contractual limitation to insurance coverage. See Etco Nig. Ltd. v. Eme(2019) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1671) 300; S.C.C. (NIGERIA) Limited .Mr. Avi Tsafrir v. Chinyere Anya, Stephine Jootar, Grace Okpe, Roseline Eze, Mr. Amir Malka (2012) 9 NWLR (Pt. 1305) 213.

 

65.            Section 6 of the Factories Act, Cap F1 LFN 2004, obligates employers to ensure a safe working environment to prevent accidents. The accident was caused by a co-worker operating a forklift who struck the Claimant’s leg while he was performing his duties. While the court is mindful that accidents may occur, the Defendant’s failure to provide evidence of safety protocols or training to prevent such incidents weighs against it. The Defendant did not demonstrate any proactive measures taken to prevent the accident, nor any disciplinary action or review of safety procedures thereafter. See Adetona v. Edet (2004) 16 NWLR (Pt. 899) 338.

 

66.            Moreover, The Claimant’s employment contract, evidenced by the appointment letters (Exhibit CW1), imposes on the Defendant the contractual obligation to pay agreed remuneration monthly and to support the Claimant in case of work-related injuries. The withholding of salary and refusal to pay medical expenses violate the express and implied terms of the employment contract.

 

67.            The employment relationship creates a duty of care on the Defendant to look after the welfare of the Claimant, including medical care for injuries sustained in the course of employment. This duty arises both from common law principles and contractual terms. The Defendant’s abandonment of the Claimant after the initial medical deposit payment breaches this duty.

 

68.            Implied in every contract of employment is a duty of good faith and fair dealing. See Apamadari v. State (1997) 3 NWLR (Pt. 493) 289. The Defendant’s attempt to compel the Claimant or his family to sign a full and final settlement before medical recovery undermines this principle and constitutes repudiatory conduct. It has been held in plethora of cases that employers are bound to meet their statutory obligations toward employees injured at work. See Nigerian Bottling Co. Ltd v. Udo (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 520) 572.  See also Kabo Air Ltd v. Mohammed (2005) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1451) 38.

 

69.            Given the statutory mandates, contractual obligations, and the defendant’s conduct, the Court finds that Eastern Metals Limited failed to fulfill its statutory and contractual obligations toward the Claimant and I so hold.

 

ISSUE THREE: WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS CLAIMED, AND IF SO, TO WHAT EXTENT

70.            Having found under Issues One and Two that the Claimant sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment with the Defendant, and that the Defendant failed to fulfil its statutory and contractual obligations regarding medical treatment and payment of salary, the Court now turns to examine the specific reliefs sought and determine which have been proven and are reasonable in law. The reliefs sought by the Claimant include:

a.     Payment of outstanding salary for December 2019;

b.     Compensation for injuries sustained, including medical expenses;

c.      General damages for pain, suffering, and consequential losses; and

d.     Any other reliefs the Court may deem fit.

 

71.            On the claim for outstanding salary, the evidence of Exhibit CW13, corroborated by the Claimant’s bank statements (Exhibit CW16), shows that the Defendant withheld the Claimant’s December 2019 salary without any lawful justification. The Defendant did not produce credible evidence to dispute this fact. Pursuant to Section 17 of the Labour Act, Cap L1, LFN 2004, an employer is bound to pay wages promptly and in full. The Court therefore finds that the Claimant is entitled to recover the unpaid December 2019 salary.

 

72.            On the claim for medical expenses, the Claimant tendered Exhibit CW12, being the hospital’s official bill, which sets out the total cost of treatment and the outstanding balance after the Defendant’s partial payment. Under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, employers are liable for the reasonable medical costs of employees injured in the course of their employment. The Defendant tendered Exhibits DW1–DW28, consisting of photocopies of receipts purportedly issued by the Federal Medical Centre, Asaba. However, these exhibits lack probative value, as they are mere photocopies and were not supported by any certification or oral testimony from the issuing authority to confirm authenticity. Furthermore, they do not establish that all the medical expenses claimed by the Claimant were fully paid by the Defendant. In the absence of credible evidence discharging this obligation, the Court finds that the Defendant’s refusal to settle the outstanding hospital bill constitutes a breach of its statutory duty. Accordingly, the Court orders payment of the outstanding medical expenses as proven.

 

73.            On the claim for damages for pain, suffering, and consequential losses, the evidence shows that the Claimant endured prolonged hospitalization, interrupted treatment due to lack of funds, and withdrawal from his pension savings to continue care (Exhibit CW13). Nigerian law recognizes the award of general damages to compensate for physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of amenities resulting from personal injury caused by breach of duty. See Ifeanyi Chukwu Osundu Co. Ltd. v. Akhigbe (1999) 11 NWLR (Pt. 625) 1; Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. Ogundehin (2014) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1391) 388. In the circumstances, the Court finds that the Claimant is entitled to general damages.

 

74.            In conclusion, the Court holds that the Claimant has proven entitlement to his outstanding salary, reimbursement of outstanding medical expenses, and an award of general damages. All other reliefs not specifically proven or reasonable in the circumstances are refused.

 

75.            Accordingly, this Honourable Court hereby grants the following reliefs:

1.       A Declaration that the Defendant breached the contract of employment owed to the Claimant as evidenced by the Confirmation Letters dated 17th June 2013 and 7th January 2014, contrary to the provisions of the Employees’ Compensation Act.

2.       The sum of ?1,011,900 (One Million, Eleven Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) being the proven special damages representing medical expenses incurred by the Claimant from 6th November 2019 to 17th March 2020.

3.       The sum of ?250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as salary arrears for the period December 2019 to April 2020, calculated at ?50,000 per month.

4.       The sum of ?10,000 (Ten Thousand Naira) for each day this suit has been pending in court from the date of filing until judgment is delivered.

5.       The sum of ?2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) as general damages for the pain, suffering, and loss of amenities suffered by the Claimant due to the Defendant’s breach and negligence.

6.  The sum of ?300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) being the cost of this suit.

7.  All monetary sums awarded shall be paid within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until final liquidation.

 

76.            This is the judgement of the Court.        

 

                        

Hon. Justice J.I. Targema, PhD