NICN - JUDGMENT
IN *** NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL ***** OF NIGERIA
IN THE ***** JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT MAKURDI
**** ** NICN/LA/77m/2025
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP, HON. JUSTICE (DR.) I. J. ESSIEN
DATE:21 July 2026
BETWEEN
GREENLIFE *************** LIMITED Defendant
RULING
This ****** is not based ** any formal motion ***** ****** this court. Rather it is post ******** ****** ***** at resolving a contending issue which arose out of the compliance with the directive of the court in the case of MR BARTHOLOMEW ******* EZE VS. GREENLIFE PHARMACEUTJCAL LIMITED SUIT NO NICN/LA/287/2021 decided on the 21st January 2026. On the 10/3/2026 counsel address the ***** *********** on this issue to ** resolved in this ruling. In the suit mentioned above, acting ******** to reliefs 3 *** 4 ******* the ******** sought:
3. A declaration that *** ************ of *** original *********** of
********** Bartholomew Chinedu Eze, from the University of Nigeria
Nsukka, ** illegal, unwarranted, wrongful *** unconstitutional and
******* to a detinue.
4. ** ORDER of this Honourable Court directing and mandating the
Defendant to *********** surrender ** the Claimant *** original
certificate in the ******* of the the Defendant.
******* thus:
*** defendant is hereby directed to hand **** the Original Pharmacist Certificate of the claimant ****** 7 days **** *** date of **** judgment.
This order was ********** ** the fact that as part of the condition of employment, the ******** was required ** deposit his original certificate from *** University ** Nigeria with *** defendant. *** defendant acknowledged *** receipt of the original certificate of the claimant ** a letter ***** *** 1/8/2016, ******** as Exhibit C2. *** claimant attempted ** return the certificate back ** the claimant. The claimant ******** that **** the defendant attempted to hand **** is a laminated ******** photocopy ***** is not the *********** of *** claimant. He posits that, that *** not **** was ****** **** ** the defendant and which the defendant acknowledged receipt by ******* C2. The defendant attempted to bring the HRM or *** officer who signed *** *************** of the ******* ** Exhibit C2, who has since left *** ********** ** *** ********* ** come and say what ** ******** from the ******** ** evidenced by Exhibit C1, *** the officer ******* for certain reasons which is **** ********* ** the strained relationship between him and the defendant. In the message he **** to the director of *** claimant wherein ** refused ** ****** court to shed some ***** on this issue ** stated ‘***** other ******** document did I ******* from staff in my capacity as the HR Manager ** ********* Pharmaceutical Ltd. about 10 years ago apart from ********* copies ** *********** which did not even require my signature then’?
*** defendant counsel has consistently argued that **** *** defendant attempted to **** over ** the claimant which *** ******** rejected was what the ******** ********* in Exhibit C2.
**** Court ** ****** upon to determine whether *** coloured and laminated copy ** the ******** Certificate which this ***** has **** was **** *** ******** actually handed over ** *** defendant ***** Resources ******* ** *** point of employment ** the claimant. I have seen the Pharmacy Certificate which is the ******** qualification ** the claimant ** a pharmacist. The certificate ** **** I may call a ***** copy of the original. It is laminated. The laminating film ****** to *** age of *** lamination. ** is not a ****** lamination. ***** means that the ******** ** not recently laminated. The Human ********* Manager in his ******* stated that what ** ******** from employees ** the defendant 10 ***** ago before ******* *** employment ** the defendant is the duplicate copy of *** employee's certificate. He *** not *** he received *** original. The claimant’s ***** seem to ** **** *** defendant lost the original **** of *** certificate. If the ******** *** lost, from where did the defendant produce the coloured and laminated copy from. ***** ** have been **** it was **** the original was submitted that the ********* produced a coloured copy ** same and laminated ** *** kept it ** a duplicate in case **** original is lost? The claimant has *** ******** *** ********* ** *** certificate, he has not said **** what ** gave *** *********** This would have raise question ** how the defendant came about the laminated **** **** have ******** from their custody. The laminated *********** looks like the ******** with all *** features of ** original certificate. The film of *** ********** is old which ** ******** of the **** that the lamination was done a long time ago.
The issue *** determination is ******* *** document in *** custody of the defendant, being a coloured and laminated **** of *** claimant's Pharmacist *********** **** *** University ** Nigeria, Nsukka, is *** **** original *********** that the claimant ********* **** the defendant as a condition ** his employment, *** ******* of which *** acknowledged ** *** defendant vide ******* C2 ***** *** August 2016.
This ***** lies at the very ***** ** *** ******* ******* the parties. The claimant's case is **** ** deposited *** original Pharmacist Certificate with the defendant **** *** ************ of *** employment, and that when the defendant later ********* to return a *********** ** him, what was presented *** not the original but a laminated coloured photocopy. The defendant's position, as discernible from *** record, is that the laminated coloured document it produced from *** custody *** attempted to hand over ** the claimant was the very certificate *** ******** deposited, as acknowledged ** ******* C2.
The starting point of the analysis must be ******* C2 itself. This ** a letter dated 1st August 2016, ********* from the defendant, by ***** *** defendant, through *** **** Human Resources Manager, acknowledged receipt of *** claimant's ******** ********** Certificate. *** probative ***** of this document is considerable. It is an ********* against interest, **** contemporaneously with the transaction it records, and *** authenticity *** not been challenged by the defendant at *** stage ** ***** proceedings. ** virtue ** Exhibit C2, *** defendant ** ***** ** its own written ************** that **** it received from the claimant *** *** original certificate. The law is well settled **** where a ***** ***** a clear, unequivocal admission ** a document, **** ***** is ******** from resiling **** the ******** ** that document ** *** absence ** cogent evidence to *** contrary. *** ******** 131 to 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The evidential burden therefore falls squarely ** the defendant to demonstrate, ** the balance of probabilities, **** the laminated ******** document it *** ***** to return is the same original *********** it ************ receiving.
The ********* attempted to discharge this ****** by seeking to call *** ****** Human Resources Manager who signed Exhibit C2 as a witness. This was, ** principle, a sound forensic strategy, for *** former HR Manager was the person **** placed ** testify as to *** precise nature and physical *************** of the document ** ******** from the claimant. However, the witness refused ** attend court, ****** a strained relationship with the defendant. The defendant did *** apply *** a subpoena to compel *** attendance of this witness. ***** Section 167(d) ** the Evidence Act, 2011, ***** a ***** ***** to produce ******** that is within *** power to produce, the ***** is entitled to draw the inference that, had the evidence been produced, it would have been ************ to **** party. *** defendant had *** means to compel the attendance of *** former officer ******* the process of the ***** and chose not ** do so. The ***** ** entitled to, *** does, draw an ******* inference **** **** failure.
What *** former HR ******* *** provide, ** *** of a message to *** defendant's director, ********* rather **** alleviates the defendant's difficulty. *** ***** were to the ****** that the only academic documents he ******** from staff in his ******** as HR Manager approximately ten years earlier were "duplicate copies of credentials ***** *** not even require ** signature then." This statement, *** **** supporting the defendant's contention **** the laminated document is the original, tends to suggest **** the defendant's own practice was to ******* duplicate copies ** credentials **** employees, not originals. ** that is so, then a serious question arises as to whether the acknowledgment in Exhibit C2 that the "original" certificate was ******** *** a mere formality — a standard-form ****** issued ******* careful verification ** whether the document deposited was truly an original. However, this ********* *** not **** on oath, *** not tested ** cross-examination, *** constitutes a belated ************ made approximately ten years after the event. The law ******* greater ****** ** *************** documentary ******** than to subsequent oral or informal recollections, particularly where *** maker of *** subsequent statement *** declined to ****** himself to the rigours of cross-examination. I therefore ****** greater weight to Exhibit C2 **** ** the ****** HR Manager's message, while ****** that *** message does not ****** the defendant's case in any event.
******* to the court's own physical inspection of the laminated document produced ** *** defendant, the ************ made are instructive but must ** carefully parsed. The document ***** all the features of ** original certificate. The ********** is not recent; the ageing of *** ********** **** is ********** with the ******** ****** **** laminated and stored *** a considerable period, ***** is consistent with it ****** been in the defendant's custody since 2016 or earlier. At the same time, I have described the ******** ** a "clone copy of the original." The *** of the word "clone" ******* the *********** that the document, while bearing a ******** *********** to an original, is in fact a ************ albeit one of very high quality. This tension ******* the document's appearance and its characterisation must be resolved.
The resolution lies in a ******* consideration of what the claimant himself said Through the ********** ** his ******* and, critically, what he did not say. The ******** counsel stated that the document the defendant attempted to ****** was not his original certificate *** a ********* coloured photocopy. However, *** claimant *** not ******* **** the document ** deposited **** *** defendant was unlaminated. This is a significant omission. If the claimant had ********* an unlaminated original certificate **** *** defendant, *** *** ********* ***** ******** a laminated document, *** natural and expected testimony **** the claimant ***** **** been that what he deposited was unlaminated. His ******* on **** ***** undermines *** theory that the defendant created a laminated coloured ************ of an unlaminated original. *** court considered the ************ **** the ********* might **** produced a coloured copy of the original, laminated it, and kept it as a duplicate. This ********** was ******* ******** ** *** ***** **** the claimant never **** what he ********* was unlaminated. ** the defendant *** ******* in such substitution, *** claimant ***** have **** the first to notice and ******* to the ********** in the physical form of the document.
Nevertheless, the claimant's rejection of the ******** is itself a piece of evidence **** cannot be ******* dismissed. The ******** is *** ****** *** possessed *** original certificate before depositing ** **** the defendant. He is *** ****** **** familiar with the physical characteristics of his *** certificate. His ********* **** the document ******** by the defendant ** not his ******** certificate, while not supported ** ******** testimony as to the physical *********** between the ******** and *** ********* copy, is ********** with the relief that led ** the order for *** ****** ** *** certificate. The ******** ** whether this assertion, ******** alongside Exhibit C2 and the other evidence, ** sufficient ** discharge the burden of proof on the balance ** probabilities.
****** weighed *** *** evidence, I find as follows. Exhibit C2 establishes, as a contemporaneous admission against interest, **** the defendant received the claimant's ******** Pharmacist Certificate. The ********* has *** ******** the ******* **** placed ** explain what was actually received. The message **** *** former HR Manager, *** from ********** *** defendant, introduces the possibility that what *** collected *** a duplicate ****** than the original, ***** ** turn raises *** ******** of what became of the original if the defendant's *** ******** was ** collect duplicates. The defendant *** ******* no ************ *********** *** *** discrepancy between Exhibit C2 *** the ****** HR Manager's recollection. *** laminated document ******** ** the defendant, ***** bearing *** features ** ** ******** ** *** face, looked like a ***** copy. The claimant ******** this document as not being *** original certificate. ***** the claimant's failure ** assert that what ** deposited was unlaminated, ******* *** strand of his case, it does *** ********** it entirely, because the claimant's rejection of the document may be based on other characteristics perceptible to him as the owner of the *********** that are not apparent to *** ***** **** visual inspection of a laminated document.
On *** balance of probabilities, and taking *** ******** ** the ******** **** account, I **** that the ********* has not ************ that the laminated coloured ******** it produced from *** ******* is the same original Pharmacist Certificate that the claimant deposited **** it. The contemporaneous documentary evidence of Exhibit C2 *********** that *** defendant received the original. *** ********* has ****** to ******* the key witness, and the adverse ********* ***** from **** ******* weighs against the defendant. The former HR Manager's *** informal statement undermines rather than supports the defendant's position. This court's observation that the ******** ***** like a ***** copy, while not conclusive standing alone, is consistent **** the claimant's ********* **** the document ** not the original. On ***** score I find **** the ******** and ********* **** of the Pharmacist Certificate ******** by the defendant is not the same original certificate that the ******** deposited with the defendant as acknowledged in Exhibit C2.
The claimant's ***** ** the return of his certificate **** the termination of the employment relationship, or upon *** directive of this ***** is beyond question. *** defendant acknowledged ******* ** the original *********** by Exhibit C2. When *** claimant demanded the return of his certificate, the defendant produced a document that, ** I have found, is not the original. The claimant rejected it. The defendant has *** ********** produced the original certificate. **** constitutes a wrongful ********* of *** claimant's property, or, if the original *** been lost, a ******** ******* to account for and ****** the chattel entrusted ** the defendant's custody. The practice of employers requiring employees to deposit ******** ******** certificates as a ********* of employment ** one that this court views with considerable concern. It is a practice that breaches *** ***** rules *** ******** of engagement ** ** employee. An employee's academic certificate ** the product of years of study and personal investment. It ** a unique document that, **** lost, cannot ****** be ******** in the same form. The requirement that an ******** surrender such a document to ** employer as a condition ** employment ****** *** employee in a ******** ** ************* and dependence that is ************ with *** dignity ** labour. That practice is not known ** labour law. It is an unfair labour practice and must ** ****** down by *** court.
However, *** ********* difficulty **** confronts *** court must be acknowledged. If, as circumstances suggests, the ********* may have lost the original certificate, the directive **** in the ******** for the defendant ** "immediately surrender" the original has ****** incapable ** compliance. *** court must fashion a remedy that is **** just *** practicable. ** the tort of detinue, where the chattel ****** ** returned because it has been lost or destroyed, the *********** remedy is the value of the ******* ******** with ******* for its detention. In this case, however, *** claimant's original Pharmacist Certificate has a value that ********** mere monetary assessment. ** is a unique document, irreplaceable in *** ******** form, and essential to the claimant's professional ******** *** livelihood. ***** the defendant is ****** to ****** with *** order made by the court because *** ******** certificate has **** **** or ** no longer in *** possession, the defendant shall ****** 2 ******* days from *** date of **** ruling ******* *** claimant with a written undertaking to bear all ***** and take all necessary ***** to assist the claimant ** ********* a *********** certificate from the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. The defendant ***** in addition pay ** the ******** the sum of N6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) as damages for the wrongful ********* and loss of *** said certificate. The defendant ***** fully ****** with the directive of this court ****** the next 7 days from the date ** this ruling.
**** is the ruling of *** court.
----------------------------------------------------
Hon. Justice (Dr.) I. J. Essien
(********* Judge)
REPRESENTATION