BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS

 

DATE: 20TH MAY2026                                                 

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/48/2024

 

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Adewumi Tola Aderonmu                        -                -                 -                       Claimant 

 

AND

1. Management Board of Obafemi Awolowo

University Teaching Hospital Complex,

Ile-Ife

2. Chief Medical Director, Obafemi Awolowo 

University Teaching Hospital Complex,

Ile-Ife                                                                                  -                       Defendants

REPRESENTATION

ItunuOluwa Aderonmu Esq for the Claimant

B. B. Boma-Kalio for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

1.         Introduction & Claims

1.         The Claimant commenced this Suit by her General Form of Complaint dated and filed 21/8/2024 along with her statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, Verifying Affidavit as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants –

 

1.   A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations.

2. A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract.

3. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023.

4. Interest on the said sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) at the rate of 20% per month from June 2023 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until the said sum is fully liquidate

5.         An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=4,000,000 (Four Million Naira) representing general damages for the hardship suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant unlawful act, breach of contract and unfair labour practice,

6. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as aggravated and exemplary damages for the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.

7. Cost of =N=500,000 for prosecuting this action.

 

2.         The Defendants reacted by filing a statement of defence along with requisite frontloaded processes on 19/12/24 but deemed properly filed on 19/2/2025.

2.         Case of the Claimant

3.         Claimant opened her case on 17/3/2025 and testified as CW1, adopted her witness deposition of 21/8/2024 as her evidence in chief and tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. TA1-Exh.TA8.

 

4.         The case of the Claimant in brief is that she was employed by and worked for the Defendants from February 2023; that she resigned from the employment in June 2023 because the Defendants did not pay her any salary during the period she worked contrary to the terms of her appointment and that although she served letters of demands on the Defendants her salary was not paid hence she filed this action.

 

5.         Under cross examination, CW1 testified that she was employed on 22/2/23; that she left the Defendant in June 2023; that she brought this action because the Defendant did not pay her salary; that she wrote a letter through her Lawyer to the Defendants for the payment of her salary; that their Nursing Leader appealed to the Defendants to pay her salary without result; that she is aware that Federal Government staff are paid through IPPIS; that she was not enrolled on the IPPIS platform; that the Chief Medical Director told them that Defendants would be paying them pending when they are enrolled on the IPPIS platform; that this was done for some staff including some Medical Officers; that she is not aware the 1st Defendant was dissolved by the President in 2023 and that she resigned because she was not paid any salary at all and she had no money to pay for a month’s salary in lieu.

 

3.         Case of the Defendants

6.         On 13/5/2025, the Defendants entered their defence. The called one Nasir Shehu as DW1. DW1 adopted his statement on oath of 19/12/2024 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document as exhibit.

 

7.         The crux of the defence of the Defendants is that the Claimant failed to register on the IPPIS platform which is the platform for the payment of all Federal workers and the Claimant could not complain of non-payment of salaries having not registered under the platform.

 

8.         While being cross examined, DW1 testified that he is not aware that the Claimant resigned effectively from Defendant on 1/6/23; that 1st Defendant is still functioning till date and staff are being paid; that every one who works for an institution is entitled to payment of salaries; that he is a staff of the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja; that he does not know whatever would have happened in the Defendant regarding employment of staff and that he does not know how he came about the information in his deposition. 

 

4.         Final Written Addresses

9.         The Defendants filed their final written address on 18/6/2025. It was dated 17/6/2025. Blessing Boma-Kalio of Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows –

 

Whether the Defendants are liable for non-payment of salaries to the Claimant despite Claimant’s failure to register on the IPPS platform which is the sole platform for salary payment for Federal workers.

 

10.       Learned Counsel submitted on this issue that the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPS) is a critical platform for managing personnel and payroll data in Nigeria public service; that according to Public Service Rules which govern the employment and management of Federal Government workers, all Federal Government employees, including newly employed personnel are required to register on the IPPS for payment of salaries and allowances; that failure to register might result in non-payment of salaries as in the instant case; that the Claimant failed to register on the IPPS which is the sole platform for salary payment for Federal workers in Nigeria and that this failure has led to a dispute over the validity and sustainability of the Claimant’s claim for salary and the Defendants’ liability for non-payment; that failure of the Claimant to register on the IPPS platform before resigning constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of her employment; that Claimant has not made out a cogent and credible case such as to move the Court to grant the reliefs sought; that it is the duty of every officer to acquaint himself or herself with the Public Service Rules, other regulations and extant circulars citing Rule 010101, Public Service Rules; that there is no cause of action against the Defendants as the failure of the Claimant to register on the IPPS platform in the root cause of this case citing Innocent Uwakwe Ajegba v. National Council for Arts and Culture & 2 Ors  & SPDCN Ltd v. Nwawka (2003)6 NWLR (Pt. 815) 184(SC) and that where  a statute provides for an act to be done in a particular manner failure to perform that act in the prescribed manner amounts to non-compliance and its effect cannot be waived citing Effiong v. Ikpeme (1999)6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 260.

 

11.       Learned Counsel finally submitted that the Defendants acted lawfully in withholding payment to the Claimant and the Claimant cannot benefit from her own breach of employment obligations. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to dismiss the case of the Claimant. 

 

12.       Itunuoluwa Aderounmu of Counsel filed a 10-page final written address on behalf of the Claimant. It was dated 30/6/2025 but filed on 1/7/2025. In it learned Counsel set down these 2 issues down for determination –

  1. Whether the Court can rely on the testimony of the lone witness of the Defendants.
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

13.       In arguing the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of DW1 who is a Litigation Clerk in the Legal Department of the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare constitutes hearsay evidence and is inadmissible citing Section 37, Evidence Act, 2011, Edosa & Anor. v. Ogemwanre (2018) LPELR-46341(SC) & Marami & Anor. v. Gondinari (2025) LPELR-800093(CA). Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the whole evidence of DW1 for being inadmissible hearsay. Leaned Counsel further submitted that having argued that the evidence of DW1 is inadmissible, the case of the Defendants becomes bare and naked due to lack of evidence and hence the case of the Claimant becomes uncontroverted since pleadings with no evidence to support it goes to no issue citing Amaechi v. INEC (2008)10 WRN (Pt. 1) 223 & Mr. Joseph E. Inua v. FBN Plc (2016)2 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 89. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.

 

14.       On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant testified that she was employed by the Defendants; that she had to resign due to non payment of her salary; that the Defendants admitted to the fact of her employment and that refusal to pay her salary even after her resignation despite repeated demands is illegal, mala fide, amounts to unfair labour practice and a breach of contract citing Bimba Agro Livestock Co Ltd v. Landmark University (2019) LPELR-47724(CA). Counsel urged the Court to grant reliefs 1, 2 & 3 as sought against the Defendants.

On relief 4, Counsel submitted that Claimant is entitled to pre-judgment interest having been denied of the fruit of her labour since February 2023 citing Omega Bank (Nig.) Ltd v. OBC Ltd (2002)16 NWLR (Pt. 794)483 at 561.

 

15.       With respect to reliefs 5, 6 & 7 learned Counsel submitted that Claimant is entitled to both general and exemplary damages; that it has been firmly established that exemplary damages are usually awarded whenever the Defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where it discloses malice, insolence, cruelty or flagrant disregard of the law citing Mtsor v. Adeke (2005) FWLR (Pt. 287) 872 at 896 and that Claimant is also entitled to the cost of this action.

 

16.       Learned Counsel further added that the argument that the case of the Claimant be refused due to non-registration with IPPIS does not hold water; that the issue of IPPIS was never pleaded neither was the issue of IPPS made part of the contract or made as a condition precedent for payment of salary; that parties are bound by their pleadings and that a party is not allowed to depart from his pleadings or put up a new case different from what he has pleaded citing Raimi v. Akintoye (2007)4 NWLR (Pt. 26) 97. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant.

 

5.         Decision

17.       The facts of this case, in brief, are that Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 30/12/2023 and worked with them till June 2023 when she resigned from the employment. It is the case of the Claimant that she was not paid any salary throughout the period she worked with the Defendants and that refusal to pay her salary was responsible for her resignation. The Defendants did not deny the fact that they employed the Claimant neither did they deny the fact Claimant was not paid salary during the period she worked with them. It is however the case of the Defendants that with the dissolution of the 1st Defendant “... there is no longer an employer-employee relationship between the Defendants and the employee” and that the dissolution of the Board was an unforeseen event beyond their control which prevented them from paying the Claimant’s salary.

 

18.       I have read and understood all the processes filed by the parties in this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered by the parties. Having done all this, I set down these issues for the just determination of this case thus,

  1. Whether the evidence of the CW1 is admissible in this case.
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendants.

19.       The first issue for determination is whether the evidence of the CW1 is admissible in this case. CW1 is the sole witness called by the Defendant. He testified in chief. He did not tender any document as exhibit. Learned Counsel to the Claimant had argued that his evidence is at best inadmissible hearsay. The 2 Defendants in this case are Management Board of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife and Chief Medical Director, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife. They are both domiciled in Ile Ife in Osun State. DW1 is not a staff of the Defendants. In paragraph 1 of his witness deposition of 19/12/2024, he described himself simply as a litigation clerk in the Legal Department Federal Ministry of Heath, Abuja. In his 18-paragraph witness deposition, DW1 did not aver as to the relationship between his employer and any of the Defendants. The employer of the DW1 is not a party to this action and this raises the question as to his nexus to this action in the first place.

 

20.       Now, the learned Counsel to the Claimant argued that the evidence of DW1 is inadmissible hearsay. Is the evidence of DW1 really hearsay and is it inadmissible? What constitutes an hearsay evidence? The Evidence Act, 2011 is clear on what an affidavit to be used in a Court should contain. In this regard, Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that every affidavit used in the court shall contain only a statement of fact and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.

21.       On what constitutes hearsay evidence, Oyewole JCA (as he then was) (now Hon. JSC) said in Mr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo v. Vanguard Media Limited (2022) LPELR-57246(CA)

 

"What constitutes hearsay evidence is contained in Section 37 of the Evidence Act thus:

37. Hearsay means a statement -

(a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding: or

(b) Contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.

  

22.       In the old case of Subramanian v. Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 W.L.R. 965 at 969 the concept of hearsay evidence was elucidated in the following words -

 

“Evidence of a statement made to a person called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the   evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made."  

 

23.       A piece of evidence is said to be Hearsay if given by a person who cannot vouch for the truth thereof. It is a piece of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but rests in part on the veracity and competence of some other person e.g. the statement of a person who is himself not called as a witness but what he said is repeated by another witness who is called. See Ojo v Gharoro (2006) 2 - 3 SC. 105, and Subramanian v Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 WLR 965 at 969. 

 

24.       Now, what is the necessary intention of the Deponent of those affidavits respecting the paragraphs under scrutiny? Could the necessary intention be to establish the mere fact that those statements were made or to prove the truth of the statements contained in the averments? It appears to me that the crux of those depositions is for the Court to believe them and sway the Court in finding in favor of the Defendant in this case and hence dismiss the case of the Claimant.

 

25.       Thus, within the context of the Judgment of Oyewole JCA in  Mr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo v. Vanguard Media Limited (2022) LPELR-57246(CA), the old case of Subramanian as well as Section 37(b), Evidence Act, the affidavit evidence of Nasiru Shehu a Litigation Clerk in the Legal Department of the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Abuja amounts to hearsay. Nothing more. Nothing less. He did not have personal knowledge of the facts deposed to. 

 

26.       Only the Defendants who are directly affected by the facts or their staff could have successfully deposed to an affidavit as the ones under consideration. Nasiru Shehu cannot in all honesty vouch for the truth of his averments. The only truth in his deposition may be that he was told what he deposed to but certainly cannot assert the truth of his depositions. A scenario as the instant case occurred in Chief Cletus Ibeto & Anor v. Pastor Igbodi David Oguh (2022) LPELR-56803(CA).  In that case, the direct evidence of the 2nd Appellant was the deposition of his Solicitor’s Law Clerk, His Lordship Akinbami JCA in holding the affidavit evidence to be hearsay evidence and inadmissible said –

 

"...I have carefully perused paragraphs 4(a)-(t) of the affidavit in support of Respondent's claim in the Undefended List, I find that they disclose that they are matters which only direct evidence may suffice to establish. They proceed to the essence of the dispute, and deal with matters which, based on a consideration of the Appellants' deposition seeking to be allowed to defend, are generously contested. Evidence of Chisom Ibe, the law clerk stood as the direct evidence of the 2nd Appellant on what transpired between the Appellants and the Respondent, explaining every detail of the transaction in which he personally participated. This evidence was denigrated and hearsay deposition of a lawyer's clerk who never took part in the transaction was wrongly preferred by the lower Court. The law is trite that evidence in order to be admissible as well as enjoy probative value, ought to be rendered by a person who is not only capable of testifying as to the truth of the matter asserted, but who could be legally cross-examined as to the testimony...."

 

27.       In the wise words of Peter Affen JCA in the same case that - 

 

“… it is always ill-advised for a lawyer or his clerk or secretary to depose to facts intended to prove a case as they are not in any position to vouch for the truth or accuracy of information derived from clients. Even the evidence of an employee of a company who was not directly involved in a transaction is to be treated with caution as it is scarcely of equal stature with, and may be insufficient to contradict the evidence adduced by the adverse party who was directly involved in the transaction. See Kate Enterprises Ltd v Daewoo Nig Ltd [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 116 where the Supreme Court held that any employee of a company who is conversant with a transaction is competent to testify in Court on behalf of the company, and not only those who were directly involved in the transaction, but proceeded to sound a note of caution that even though the evidence adduced by an employee who was not directly involved in a transaction is admissible, the question of the weight or probative value to be ascribed to his/her evidence is an entirely different matter”.

 

28.       It is apparent that the evidence of CW1 offends both the caselaw and the statute-law. It remains inadmissible. It has to be discountenanced. I accordingly discountenance and expunge it from record. Being inadmissible it is of no utility to the just determination of this case. I resolve the first issue in favor of the Claimant and against the Defendants.

 

29.       The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendants. Claimant prayed the Court for 7 reliefs against the Defendants. They are 1. A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations. 2. A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract. 3. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023. 4. Interest on the said sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) at the rate of 20% per month from June 2023 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until the said sum is fully liquidated. 5. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=4,000,000 (Four Million Naira) representing general damages for the hardship suffered by the Claimant because of the Defendant unlawful act, breach of contract and unfair labour practice. 6.  An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as aggravated and exemplary damages for the unlawful conduct of the Defendants. 7. Cost of =N=500,000 for prosecuting this action.

 

30.       The law remains trite that the burden is on he who asserts to prove the assertion. The proof required may be oral or documentary or both. The Courts however pay credence to documentary evidence over and above oral evidence. In proving his case, Claimant testified in chief and tendered 8 exhibits. I find as a fact by Exh. C1 that Claimant was employed by the Defendants. I also find by her unchallenged evidence that she was not paid salary for the period of 4 months she worked with the Defendants. In this light her evidence as regards her annual salary was not challenged by the Defendants. Accordingly, I grant the first 3 reliefs sought. I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations. Secondly, I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract. Thirdly, I order the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023. I refuse and dismiss claim for pre-judgment interest as well as for general, aggravated and exemplary damages for lack of proof. 

 

31.       Respecting cost of action, it is trite cost follows event. The refusal of the Defendants to pay Claimant her salaries forced her to resign and to resort to judicial process to ventilate her grievances. This action was filed in 2024. It is without doubt that both time and resources have been expended in the prosecution of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only   as cost of this action.

 

 

6.         Conclusion

32.       Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant succeeds in part as follows –

  1. I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations. 
  2. Secondly, I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract. 
  3. Thirdly, I order the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023.
  4. I refuse and dismiss claim for pre-judgment interest as well as for general, aggravated and exemplary damages for lack of proof.
  5. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only   as cost of this action.

33.       All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today and except cost, shall thereafter attract 20% interest per annum until final liquidation.

 

34.       Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE IBADAN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT IBADAN

 BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J.D. PETERS

 

DATE: 20TH MAY2026                                                 

SUIT NO: NICN/IB/48/2024

 

BETWEEN:

Mrs. Adewumi Tola Aderonmu                        -                -                 -                       Claimant 

 

AND

1. Management Board of Obafemi Awolowo

University Teaching Hospital Complex,

Ile-Ife

2. Chief Medical Director, Obafemi Awolowo 

University Teaching Hospital Complex,

Ile-Ife                                                                                  -                       Defendants

REPRESENTATION

ItunuOluwa Aderonmu Esq for the Claimant

B. B. Boma-Kalio for the Defendants

 

JUDGMENT

1.         Introduction & Claims

1.         The Claimant commenced this Suit by her General Form of Complaint dated and filed 21/8/2024 along with her statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, Verifying Affidavit as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants –

 

1.   A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations.

2. A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract.

3. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023.

4. Interest on the said sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) at the rate of 20% per month from June 2023 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until the said sum is fully liquidate

5.         An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=4,000,000 (Four Million Naira) representing general damages for the hardship suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant unlawful act, breach of contract and unfair labour practice,

6. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as aggravated and exemplary damages for the unlawful conduct of the Defendants.

7. Cost of =N=500,000 for prosecuting this action.

 

2.         The Defendants reacted by filing a statement of defence along with requisite frontloaded processes on 19/12/24 but deemed properly filed on 19/2/2025.

2.         Case of the Claimant

3.         Claimant opened her case on 17/3/2025 and testified as CW1, adopted her witness deposition of 21/8/2024 as her evidence in chief and tendered 8 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. TA1-Exh.TA8.

 

4.         The case of the Claimant in brief is that she was employed by and worked for the Defendants from February 2023; that she resigned from the employment in June 2023 because the Defendants did not pay her any salary during the period she worked contrary to the terms of her appointment and that although she served letters of demands on the Defendants her salary was not paid hence she filed this action.

 

5.         Under cross examination, CW1 testified that she was employed on 22/2/23; that she left the Defendant in June 2023; that she brought this action because the Defendant did not pay her salary; that she wrote a letter through her Lawyer to the Defendants for the payment of her salary; that their Nursing Leader appealed to the Defendants to pay her salary without result; that she is aware that Federal Government staff are paid through IPPIS; that she was not enrolled on the IPPIS platform; that the Chief Medical Director told them that Defendants would be paying them pending when they are enrolled on the IPPIS platform; that this was done for some staff including some Medical Officers; that she is not aware the 1st Defendant was dissolved by the President in 2023 and that she resigned because she was not paid any salary at all and she had no money to pay for a month’s salary in lieu.

 

3.         Case of the Defendants

6.         On 13/5/2025, the Defendants entered their defence. The called one Nasir Shehu as DW1. DW1 adopted his statement on oath of 19/12/2024 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document as exhibit.

 

7.         The crux of the defence of the Defendants is that the Claimant failed to register on the IPPIS platform which is the platform for the payment of all Federal workers and the Claimant could not complain of non-payment of salaries having not registered under the platform.

 

8.         While being cross examined, DW1 testified that he is not aware that the Claimant resigned effectively from Defendant on 1/6/23; that 1st Defendant is still functioning till date and staff are being paid; that every one who works for an institution is entitled to payment of salaries; that he is a staff of the Federal Ministry of Health, Abuja; that he does not know whatever would have happened in the Defendant regarding employment of staff and that he does not know how he came about the information in his deposition. 

 

4.         Final Written Addresses

9.         The Defendants filed their final written address on 18/6/2025. It was dated 17/6/2025. Blessing Boma-Kalio of Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows –

 

Whether the Defendants are liable for non-payment of salaries to the Claimant despite Claimant’s failure to register on the IPPS platform which is the sole platform for salary payment for Federal workers.

 

10.       Learned Counsel submitted on this issue that the Integrated Personnel and Payroll Information System (IPPS) is a critical platform for managing personnel and payroll data in Nigeria public service; that according to Public Service Rules which govern the employment and management of Federal Government workers, all Federal Government employees, including newly employed personnel are required to register on the IPPS for payment of salaries and allowances; that failure to register might result in non-payment of salaries as in the instant case; that the Claimant failed to register on the IPPS which is the sole platform for salary payment for Federal workers in Nigeria and that this failure has led to a dispute over the validity and sustainability of the Claimant’s claim for salary and the Defendants’ liability for non-payment; that failure of the Claimant to register on the IPPS platform before resigning constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of her employment; that Claimant has not made out a cogent and credible case such as to move the Court to grant the reliefs sought; that it is the duty of every officer to acquaint himself or herself with the Public Service Rules, other regulations and extant circulars citing Rule 010101, Public Service Rules; that there is no cause of action against the Defendants as the failure of the Claimant to register on the IPPS platform in the root cause of this case citing Innocent Uwakwe Ajegba v. National Council for Arts and Culture & 2 Ors  & SPDCN Ltd v. Nwawka (2003)6 NWLR (Pt. 815) 184(SC) and that where  a statute provides for an act to be done in a particular manner failure to perform that act in the prescribed manner amounts to non-compliance and its effect cannot be waived citing Effiong v. Ikpeme (1999)6 NWLR (Pt. 606) 260.

 

11.       Learned Counsel finally submitted that the Defendants acted lawfully in withholding payment to the Claimant and the Claimant cannot benefit from her own breach of employment obligations. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to dismiss the case of the Claimant. 

 

12.       Itunuoluwa Aderounmu of Counsel filed a 10-page final written address on behalf of the Claimant. It was dated 30/6/2025 but filed on 1/7/2025. In it learned Counsel set down these 2 issues down for determination –

  1. Whether the Court can rely on the testimony of the lone witness of the Defendants.
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought.

13.       In arguing the first issue, learned Counsel submitted that the evidence of DW1 who is a Litigation Clerk in the Legal Department of the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare constitutes hearsay evidence and is inadmissible citing Section 37, Evidence Act, 2011, Edosa & Anor. v. Ogemwanre (2018) LPELR-46341(SC) & Marami & Anor. v. Gondinari (2025) LPELR-800093(CA). Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the whole evidence of DW1 for being inadmissible hearsay. Leaned Counsel further submitted that having argued that the evidence of DW1 is inadmissible, the case of the Defendants becomes bare and naked due to lack of evidence and hence the case of the Claimant becomes uncontroverted since pleadings with no evidence to support it goes to no issue citing Amaechi v. INEC (2008)10 WRN (Pt. 1) 223 & Mr. Joseph E. Inua v. FBN Plc (2016)2 NWLR (Pt. 1495) 89. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.

 

14.       On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant testified that she was employed by the Defendants; that she had to resign due to non payment of her salary; that the Defendants admitted to the fact of her employment and that refusal to pay her salary even after her resignation despite repeated demands is illegal, mala fide, amounts to unfair labour practice and a breach of contract citing Bimba Agro Livestock Co Ltd v. Landmark University (2019) LPELR-47724(CA). Counsel urged the Court to grant reliefs 1, 2 & 3 as sought against the Defendants.

On relief 4, Counsel submitted that Claimant is entitled to pre-judgment interest having been denied of the fruit of her labour since February 2023 citing Omega Bank (Nig.) Ltd v. OBC Ltd (2002)16 NWLR (Pt. 794)483 at 561.

 

15.       With respect to reliefs 5, 6 & 7 learned Counsel submitted that Claimant is entitled to both general and exemplary damages; that it has been firmly established that exemplary damages are usually awarded whenever the Defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous to merit punishment as where it discloses malice, insolence, cruelty or flagrant disregard of the law citing Mtsor v. Adeke (2005) FWLR (Pt. 287) 872 at 896 and that Claimant is also entitled to the cost of this action.

 

16.       Learned Counsel further added that the argument that the case of the Claimant be refused due to non-registration with IPPIS does not hold water; that the issue of IPPIS was never pleaded neither was the issue of IPPS made part of the contract or made as a condition precedent for payment of salary; that parties are bound by their pleadings and that a party is not allowed to depart from his pleadings or put up a new case different from what he has pleaded citing Raimi v. Akintoye (2007)4 NWLR (Pt. 26) 97. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant.

 

5.         Decision

17.       The facts of this case, in brief, are that Claimant was employed by the Defendant on 30/12/2023 and worked with them till June 2023 when she resigned from the employment. It is the case of the Claimant that she was not paid any salary throughout the period she worked with the Defendants and that refusal to pay her salary was responsible for her resignation. The Defendants did not deny the fact that they employed the Claimant neither did they deny the fact Claimant was not paid salary during the period she worked with them. It is however the case of the Defendants that with the dissolution of the 1st Defendant “... there is no longer an employer-employee relationship between the Defendants and the employee” and that the dissolution of the Board was an unforeseen event beyond their control which prevented them from paying the Claimant’s salary.

 

18.       I have read and understood all the processes filed by the parties in this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered by the parties. Having done all this, I set down these issues for the just determination of this case thus,

  1. Whether the evidence of the CW1 is admissible in this case.
  2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendants.

19.       The first issue for determination is whether the evidence of the CW1 is admissible in this case. CW1 is the sole witness called by the Defendant. He testified in chief. He did not tender any document as exhibit. Learned Counsel to the Claimant had argued that his evidence is at best inadmissible hearsay. The 2 Defendants in this case are Management Board of Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife and Chief Medical Director, Obafemi Awolowo University Teaching Hospital Complex, Ile-Ife. They are both domiciled in Ile Ife in Osun State. DW1 is not a staff of the Defendants. In paragraph 1 of his witness deposition of 19/12/2024, he described himself simply as a litigation clerk in the Legal Department Federal Ministry of Heath, Abuja. In his 18-paragraph witness deposition, DW1 did not aver as to the relationship between his employer and any of the Defendants. The employer of the DW1 is not a party to this action and this raises the question as to his nexus to this action in the first place.

 

20.       Now, the learned Counsel to the Claimant argued that the evidence of DW1 is inadmissible hearsay. Is the evidence of DW1 really hearsay and is it inadmissible? What constitutes an hearsay evidence? The Evidence Act, 2011 is clear on what an affidavit to be used in a Court should contain. In this regard, Section 115 of the Evidence Act, 2011 provides that every affidavit used in the court shall contain only a statement of fact and circumstances to which the witness deposes, either of his own personal knowledge or from information which he believes to be true.

21.       On what constitutes hearsay evidence, Oyewole JCA (as he then was) (now Hon. JSC) said in Mr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo v. Vanguard Media Limited (2022) LPELR-57246(CA)

 

"What constitutes hearsay evidence is contained in Section 37 of the Evidence Act thus:

37. Hearsay means a statement -

(a) Oral or written made otherwise than by a witness in a proceeding: or

(b) Contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatever, proof of which is not admissible under any provision of this Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it.

  

22.       In the old case of Subramanian v. Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 W.L.R. 965 at 969 the concept of hearsay evidence was elucidated in the following words -

 

“Evidence of a statement made to a person called as a witness may or may not be hearsay. It is hearsay and inadmissible when the object of the evidence is to establish the truth of what is contained in the statement. It is not hearsay and is admissible when it is proposed to establish by the   evidence, not the truth of the statement but the fact that it was made."  

 

23.       A piece of evidence is said to be Hearsay if given by a person who cannot vouch for the truth thereof. It is a piece of evidence which does not derive its value solely from the credit given to the witness himself, but rests in part on the veracity and competence of some other person e.g. the statement of a person who is himself not called as a witness but what he said is repeated by another witness who is called. See Ojo v Gharoro (2006) 2 - 3 SC. 105, and Subramanian v Public Prosecutor (1956) 1 WLR 965 at 969. 

 

24.       Now, what is the necessary intention of the Deponent of those affidavits respecting the paragraphs under scrutiny? Could the necessary intention be to establish the mere fact that those statements were made or to prove the truth of the statements contained in the averments? It appears to me that the crux of those depositions is for the Court to believe them and sway the Court in finding in favor of the Defendant in this case and hence dismiss the case of the Claimant.

 

25.       Thus, within the context of the Judgment of Oyewole JCA in  Mr. Ifeanyichukwu Okonkwo v. Vanguard Media Limited (2022) LPELR-57246(CA), the old case of Subramanian as well as Section 37(b), Evidence Act, the affidavit evidence of Nasiru Shehu a Litigation Clerk in the Legal Department of the Federal Ministry of Health and Social Welfare, Abuja amounts to hearsay. Nothing more. Nothing less. He did not have personal knowledge of the facts deposed to. 

 

26.       Only the Defendants who are directly affected by the facts or their staff could have successfully deposed to an affidavit as the ones under consideration. Nasiru Shehu cannot in all honesty vouch for the truth of his averments. The only truth in his deposition may be that he was told what he deposed to but certainly cannot assert the truth of his depositions. A scenario as the instant case occurred in Chief Cletus Ibeto & Anor v. Pastor Igbodi David Oguh (2022) LPELR-56803(CA).  In that case, the direct evidence of the 2nd Appellant was the deposition of his Solicitor’s Law Clerk, His Lordship Akinbami JCA in holding the affidavit evidence to be hearsay evidence and inadmissible said –

 

"...I have carefully perused paragraphs 4(a)-(t) of the affidavit in support of Respondent's claim in the Undefended List, I find that they disclose that they are matters which only direct evidence may suffice to establish. They proceed to the essence of the dispute, and deal with matters which, based on a consideration of the Appellants' deposition seeking to be allowed to defend, are generously contested. Evidence of Chisom Ibe, the law clerk stood as the direct evidence of the 2nd Appellant on what transpired between the Appellants and the Respondent, explaining every detail of the transaction in which he personally participated. This evidence was denigrated and hearsay deposition of a lawyer's clerk who never took part in the transaction was wrongly preferred by the lower Court. The law is trite that evidence in order to be admissible as well as enjoy probative value, ought to be rendered by a person who is not only capable of testifying as to the truth of the matter asserted, but who could be legally cross-examined as to the testimony...."

 

27.       In the wise words of Peter Affen JCA in the same case that - 

 

“… it is always ill-advised for a lawyer or his clerk or secretary to depose to facts intended to prove a case as they are not in any position to vouch for the truth or accuracy of information derived from clients. Even the evidence of an employee of a company who was not directly involved in a transaction is to be treated with caution as it is scarcely of equal stature with, and may be insufficient to contradict the evidence adduced by the adverse party who was directly involved in the transaction. See Kate Enterprises Ltd v Daewoo Nig Ltd [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 116 where the Supreme Court held that any employee of a company who is conversant with a transaction is competent to testify in Court on behalf of the company, and not only those who were directly involved in the transaction, but proceeded to sound a note of caution that even though the evidence adduced by an employee who was not directly involved in a transaction is admissible, the question of the weight or probative value to be ascribed to his/her evidence is an entirely different matter”.

 

28.       It is apparent that the evidence of CW1 offends both the caselaw and the statute-law. It remains inadmissible. It has to be discountenanced. I accordingly discountenance and expunge it from record. Being inadmissible it is of no utility to the just determination of this case. I resolve the first issue in favor of the Claimant and against the Defendants.

 

29.       The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought against the Defendants. Claimant prayed the Court for 7 reliefs against the Defendants. They are 1. A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations. 2. A Declaration that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract. 3. An Order directing the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023. 4. Interest on the said sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) at the rate of 20% per month from June 2023 until the date of judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% per annum until the said sum is fully liquidated. 5. An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=4,000,000 (Four Million Naira) representing general damages for the hardship suffered by the Claimant because of the Defendant unlawful act, breach of contract and unfair labour practice. 6.  An Order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1,000,000 (One Million Naira) as aggravated and exemplary damages for the unlawful conduct of the Defendants. 7. Cost of =N=500,000 for prosecuting this action.

 

30.       The law remains trite that the burden is on he who asserts to prove the assertion. The proof required may be oral or documentary or both. The Courts however pay credence to documentary evidence over and above oral evidence. In proving his case, Claimant testified in chief and tendered 8 exhibits. I find as a fact by Exh. C1 that Claimant was employed by the Defendants. I also find by her unchallenged evidence that she was not paid salary for the period of 4 months she worked with the Defendants. In this light her evidence as regards her annual salary was not challenged by the Defendants. Accordingly, I grant the first 3 reliefs sought. I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations. Secondly, I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract. Thirdly, I order the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023. I refuse and dismiss claim for pre-judgment interest as well as for general, aggravated and exemplary damages for lack of proof. 

 

31.       Respecting cost of action, it is trite cost follows event. The refusal of the Defendants to pay Claimant her salaries forced her to resign and to resort to judicial process to ventilate her grievances. This action was filed in 2024. It is without doubt that both time and resources have been expended in the prosecution of this case. Accordingly, the Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only   as cost of this action.

 

 

6.         Conclusion

32.       Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant succeeds in part as follows –

  1. I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the monthly salaries of the Claimant by the Defendants despite working for the Defendants from February 2023 to June 2023 when the Claimant resigned from the employment of the Defendants is mala fide, illegal and amounts to unfair labour practice in labour relations. 
  2. Secondly, I declare that the refusal/neglect to pay the salaries of the Claimant for the duration of her employment with the Defendants as stated in the Claimant’s letter of appointment dated 30th December 2022 amounts to a breach of contract. 
  3. Thirdly, I order the Defendants to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=509,042.00 (Five Hundred and Nine Thousand, forty-two Naira) being the unpaid salaries of the Claimant from February 2023 to May 2023.
  4. I refuse and dismiss claim for pre-judgment interest as well as for general, aggravated and exemplary damages for lack of proof.
  5. The Defendants are ordered to pay to the Claimant Five Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=500,000.00) only   as cost of this action.

33.       All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today and except cost, shall thereafter attract 20% interest per annum until final liquidation.

 

34.       Judgment is entered accordingly.

 

____________________

Hon. Justice J. D. Peters

Presiding Judge