BACK

NICN - JUDGMENT

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE BENIN JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT BENIN CITY

 

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE A.A. ADEWEMIMO

 

DATED: 11TH MAY, 2026                                        

SUIT NO: NICN/BEN/20/2022

BETWEEN: 

UWAIFO SAMSON                                                  ----------- CLAIMANT

AND

RONGTAI WOOD NIGERIA COY LTD             ----------- DEFENDANT

 

 

REPRESENTATION

Osaigbovo Aiguokhian, Esq. for the Claimant

Felix Osa Imasuen, Esq for the Defendant

 

                                                    JUDGMENT

  1. The Claimant initiated this suit against defendant vide a General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts and other accompanying processes dated 4th day of March, and filed 8th April, 2022. On 21st of November, 2024, he obtained leave to amend his originating process, and the extant Statement of Facts and complaint in this suit is the one dated and filed 26th of November, 2024, wherein the claimant is seeking the following orders against the Defendant;
    1. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to purchase and deliver to the Claimant a Prosthesis Artificial Limb.
    2. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N200,000,000.00 (Two Hundred Million Naira) to the Claimant being just and adequate compensation for the lifetime/permanent deformity and disability by loss of his arm arising from the accident.
    3. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant’s monthly salary of N70,000.00 (Seventy Thousand Naira) from August, 2021 till date.
    4. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being cost of this suit.
    5. 10% interest on the judgment sum from the date until the entire judgment sum is liquidated.
  2. A terse fact of this case is that the claimant was an intern in the defendant (a company engaged in modern density fibre board, i.e. wooden boards), and was designated shift manager, a role he commenced on 4th May, 2021. On 3rd of August, 2021, claimant was in the process of effecting a repair on a conveyor belt, when an operator switched on the machine, which resulted in a severe injury to his left arm, and its eventual amputation. The claimant is therefore seeking compensation for the lifelong disability sustained by him while working for the defendant

 

  1. The defendant entered appearance vide a Memorandum of Appearance, with a statement of defence and accompanying processes dated 15th and filed 28th of April, 2022. The defendant denied each and every averment in the statement of facts, it averred that the claimant contributed to the accident, and the company has fulfilled the duty of care owed to him. The claimant filed a Reply to the Statement of defence, which was amended with the leave of court, and the extant Amended Reply to the Statement of Defence is dated 11th and filed 13th November, 2024.

 

  1. Trial commenced on 5th June, 2025, with the claimant, Uwaifo Samson, as CW1, he adopted his written statement on oath, and tendered several documents which were admitted in evidence as Exhibits 01, 03 – 017. Under cross-examination, he confirmed that Exhibit 01 was not filled by him, but by defendant’s secretary, during his internship. He testified that he is an HND graduate and certified HSE (Health, Safety and Environment) professional and he also possesses a Customer relationship and Project Management Certificate, but same are not with him in court. He admitted he does not wear any safety gadgets as Chief Manager, but as an Engineer he must, and did when approaching the crisis on the date of incident.  

 

  1. CW1 testified that he was not given a letter of appointment, but was asked to fill a resume at the Secretary’s office, and was also not issued a letter when appointed as Manager, but was added to the Company Managers’ WhatSapp group. CW1 led evidence that Exhibit 012 contains receipts of further treatments obtained by him after he left the defendant, while Exhibit 04 is a letter of demand for compensation. The claimant denied any knowledge of defendant’s share capital, and admitted he was taken to 3 different hospitals by the company before his surgery.

 

  1. CW1 maintained that his hospital bills were paid by the defendant, but he was later abandoned, and does not know how much was paid by the company as hospital bills. He testified that after he wrote Exhibit 04, the defendant invited him to series of meetings, and the only one he did not attend was due to a medical appointment, but he informed the defendant ahead. CW1 maintained that the defendant failed to attend the last meeting that was scheduled, even though he was there all day, and in one of the meetings, an offer of N2,000,000.00 was made which he turned down. CW1 confirmed he was given some money for the receipts he presented at one of the meetings, based on a prior arrangement, and that he was offered a sum of N3,500,000 during the pendency of this case. The claimant also admitted he reported to several people, including his Head of department, Director and Production Manager while in the defendant.

 

  1. One Blessed Omoregie “M” a professional photographer testified as CW2, he adopted his written statement on oath and identified some documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits 02 and 02A. Under cross examination, CW2 cannot remember when the photographs in the hand set were brought to him for printing, or the hospital where he took the second set of photographs. He also denied knowledge of other facts, and maintained that he was merely invited to take photographs. The Claimant closed his case with this witness and the matter was adjourned for defence. 

 

  1. The defence opened on 28th October, 2025, when one Brown Emagbemi “M” a Translator/Administrative Assistant with the defendant testified as DW1. He adopted his written statement on oath and identified two documents which were admitted and marked Exhibits R1 and R2. Under cross examination, DW1 admitted he was not in the defendant’s employment when the incident in this case occurred, and he is not a Manager or Shareholder in the company. DW1 led evidence that claimant’s salaries were paid from the date of his accident till he left the company, but does not have evidence of payments with him in court. DW1 denied knowledge of a WhatSapp group for defendant’s Managers, and admitted he was not part of a meeting where compensation was discussed by parties. 

 

  1.  DW1 maintained he does not know how much the defendant paid as claimant’s hospital bills, but the amount is in Exhibit R1, he also admitted that defendant has several files where documents are being kept. The witness confirmed he was employed in August, 2023, and that the accident in this case occurred when claimant was on duty. DW1 denied knowledge of when the claimant asked for compensation, and maintained he is still an employee of the defendant, and was briefed by the company’s previous translator before coming to testify in court. 
  2. The defence closed its case with this witness, and the matter was adjourned for adoption of Final Written Address. Parties subsequently filed their respective written address, and same were adopted on 19th February, 2026.

 

  1.  The defendant’s Final Written Address is dated 16th and filed 20th January, 2026, but deemed properly filed on the 20th January, 2026, wherein Felix Osa Imasuen, Esq. of counsel for the defendant distilled a lone issue for determination, to wit:  

Whether from the totality of evidence adduced by both parties, the Defendant is not negligent and if he is, whether he is qualified for all the reliefs he seeks in this case.

 

 

  1.  On the lone issue, defence counsel submitted that the contention in this case is not whether the Claimant is entitled to compensation, but whether the injury he sustained was due to his negligence. He continued that if indeed he contributed to the accident, whether he is entitled to the compensation he is seeking which the defendant cannot afford, except the Company goes into liquidation. 

 

  1.  Counsel noted that the defendant offered a sum of N4,500,000.00 (Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Naira) to the claimant, and this fact remains unchallenged. He further noted that the company is a small production outfit with a share capital of N10,000,000.00 and cannot pay the claimant more than N4,500,000.00 except the claimant wants the company to go into liquidation.

 

  1.  He pointed out that the defendant acted timeously and saved the claimant’s life by taking him to various hospitals, paying for his treatment, drugs and surgery immediately after the accident. Counsel submitted that these facts were uncontroverted, and noted that such evidence need no further proof, citing DANJUMA JAZHINBWA V. RABO SABA (2023) 06 LPELR 99626 (CA) and BOLANLE V ABEKE (2007) 3 FWLR pg 5037 at pg 5039. He urged the Court to act on same. 

 

  1.  Learned counsel referred to Paragraphs 16, 17 and 18 of claimant’s evidence in chief on how the accident occurred, and noted that he admitted under cross examination that he was not wearing any safety gadget. He argued that the action and inaction of a technician/Claimant in the situation can best be described as negligence. He maintained that had it been he was wearing safety gadgets, and took reasonable care by switching off the conveyor belt before attempting the repairs he undertook, the accident would have been avoided. Counsel submitted that by the claimant’s negligence and non-adherence to instructions, he failed to take reasonable care of his own safety, and urged the Court to so hold.
  2.  Counsel noted that CW1 led evidence that he was directing the operation of the machine when the accident occurred, and cannot exonerate himself relying on NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA V. T.A.F.A. (1996) 8 NWLR (PT. 468.). He also referred to Paragraph 12 of claimant’s written statement on oath and noted that the employee who turned on the conveyor belt acted under the instruction of CW1. He maintained that the defendant did not neglect or abandon the claimant going by paragraphs 24, 25, 26 and 27 of his Statement of Facts and depositions on oath. He noted that Claimant was offered N4,500,000.00 (Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) but insisted on N280,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Eighty Million Naira), and submitted that paying such an humongous bill will lead to the company’s liquidation. The defence counsel posited that this is not only unreasonable, but unconscionable.

 

  1.  He noted that claimant was an intern in the Company and not an employee or manager, and was placed on an allowance of N70,000.00 (Seventy Thousand Naira) per month while being trained on the job. He submitted that owing to his own negligence and regrettably, he lost an arm, but the defendant supported him. He maintained that claimant could not have been a Manager with a salary of N70,000.00 (Seventy Thousand Naira) because no professional earns such an amount, talk less of a bona fide staff or Manager of the defendant. 

 

  1.  Counsel noted that the Identity card tendered by CW1 was given to him when he came in as an intern, and noted that the absence of a letter of appointment or promotion reinforces the fact that he is not a staff member of the defendant. Counsel pointed out that DW1 gave evidence that there has never been a Nigerian manager in the Company, but Supervisors, Marketing Officers and Translators.

 

  1.  The defence counsel submitted that given the totality of evidence adduced in this case juxtaposed with defendant’s contentions, this is a case of contributory negligence. He argued that even though claimant was not defendant’s staff they discharged their duty of care to him, he therefore urged the Court to hold that defendant was not negligent, but CW1 was to warrant such degree of accident.

 

  1.  He urged the Court to hold that the Claimant was not an Employee of the defendant but an Intern, and was negligent in the course of his job, and therefore decline the reliefs sought in this case, by resolving the lone issue in favour of the defendant.

 

  1. The Claimant’s Final Written Address is dated 3rd and filed 10th February, 2026, and argued by Osaigbovo Aiguokhian of counsel for the claimant. The counsel formulated two issues for determination of this case in his address, to wit:
    1. Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his case on the preponderance of evidence as required by law to entitle him to his reliefs sought.
    2. Whether the Claimant having successfully proved his case on the preponderance of evidence, he is entitled to full and adequate compensation commensurate/proportionate to the permanent disability/ lifelong injury sustained in the course of his employment with the Defendant.

 

  1.  On issue one, counsel submitted that the Claimant having proved his case on the preponderance of evidence as required by law is entitled to the reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel referred to Sections 131 to 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011 (as amended), and submitted that the burden of proof rest on the party against whom judgment would be given if no evidence was produced on the facts adduced. He cited KUPOLATI VS. MTN (NIG) COMM. LTD (2016) ALL FWLR PT. 847 PG. 465 @ PG 496 PARAS D-E.

 

  1.  The claimant’s counsel noted that CW1 and his witness have led uncontroverted evidence to entitle him to the reliefs sought in this suit. He placed reliance on all the Exhibits before the court and maintained that claimant’s evidence being unchallenged is deemed admitted. He cited BURUTOLOU V. YEIBAKE (2015) ALL FWLR PT. 771 PG. 1534 @ PG. 1545 PARAS C-E, and several other cases, and urged the court to accept the evidence of CW1 and CW2 as the true facts of this case. 

 

  1.  Counsel noted that DW1 gave evidence on behalf of defendant, but under cross examination, admitted he was not in the defendant’s employment at the time of the incident in this suit. He noted that his entire evidence was therefore based on information he obtained from a former translator, and surmised that his evidence is nothing more than hearsay which is inadmissible in law. Counsel urged the court to discountenance same, and to resolve issue one in favour of the claimant. 

 

  1.  On issue two, counsel submitted that the claimant having successfully proved his case on the preponderance of evidence required by law is entitled to compensation commensurate with permanent/lifelong disability incurred by him in the course of his employment with the Defendant. He noted that the Claimant’s left arm was amputated as a result of the injury sustained while working for the defendant, and this caused him physical, emotional, mental, and psychological trauma. He noted further that his injury clearly constitutes permanent disability within the meaning of Sections 7(1) and 22 of Employee’s Compensation Act (ECA) 2010.

 

  1.  Counsel submitted that the loss of a limb, particularly an arm as in this case amount to a grave an irreversible disability, significantly impairing any capacity, quality of life and future employability. He maintained the claimant’s injury is a lifelong disability attracting compensation under Section 22 of the First Schedule of Employee’s Compensation Act, and argued that the compensation should be commensurate with lifelong/ permanent disability. Claimant’s counsel contended that the arguments of defence counsel that the CW1 is not entitled to the sum in his claims because he was negligent and contributed to the accident is against the position of the law, he argued that under Nigerian Law, an employer owes a non-delegable duty to ensure safety in the work place, supervision and enforcement of safety rules.

 

  1.  The claimant’s counsel argued that duties of an employer cannot be shifted to the employee by merely alleging failure to wear safety gadget, relying on R. O. IYERE V. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD (2008) 18 NWLR PT. 1119 PG. 300. He submitted that the defendant could not provide credible evidence of a safe system of work, safe equipment and appliances, proper supervision and enforcement of its safety rules were available to support its defence of contributory negligence. He maintained that assuming there is a contributory negligence on the part of the Claimant for failure to wear a safety gadget, such a defence may apportion liability and not completely absolve the employer. He cited WESTERN (NIG) TRADING CO. LTD V. BUSARI AJAO (1965) NMLR PG. 175 and maintained that the defendant failed woefully to provide evidence of contributory negligence. He noted that the Claimant’s evidence is that, he did not wear safety gadget based on his position on the day of the incident, but wore safety gadget to the scene.

 

  1.  The claimant’s counsel noted the submissions of defence counsel that the defendant has N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) share capital and cannot afford the sum demanded by the Claimant, and may likely go into liquidation if ordered to pay same. He submitted that the argument is baseless in the sense that if the defendant has a share capital of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) it does not legally reduce or limit the defendant’s obligation to compensate the claimant who suffered a lifelong disability due to his work place injury. 

 

  1.  He posited that under both Nigerian Law and Common Law Principle, the financial size or share capital of a company is irrelevant to employer’s liability to compensate an injured employee. He argued that what matters is whether the employer owed an employee a duty of care, breached that duty (or statutory obligation) and caused injury, not whether it is big or wealthy. Counsel pointed out that the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010 established a statutory scheme for compensating employees who suffers injury, disability, disease or death which arose in the course of employment.  

 

  1.  He submitted that the ECA provides for: (a) Compensation for disability regardless of employer’s size. (b) A no ‘fault regime’ – meaning compensation is due if the injury arises from employment, without regard to employer’s wealth or capital. Counsel referred the court to GODWIN ANTHONY UTIBE V. JIUXNG INTEGRITY INDUSTRIES LTD CASE NO: NICN/OW/43/2023 and noted that this court awarded a sum of N30,000,000.00 (Thirty Million Naira) in general and special damages for permanent disability caused by an employer for breach of duty of care, and nothing suggests that the company’s size or capital should reduce the award. Counsel cited a Judgment of this court in JEPLIN NORENSE OGIAMIEN V. GULF MANNING SERVICES NIGERIA LIMITED, SUIT NO: NICN/LA/498/2012 delivered on the 22nd of September, 2015, coram his lordship J.D Peters J. he however failed to attach a Certified True Copy of the judgment cited as required under the rules of this court, as such, the court is unable to consider or have an overview of same.

 

  1.  The claimant’s counsel went on to argue that focus should be on the nature of an employee’s injury, and its effect on his capacity to work, and not on the company’s wealth. Counsel pointed out that the defendant’s argument that claimant was an intern, and not its staff is misconceived, and does not represent the position of the law. He posited that such a defence cannot avail the defendant in this instance, once it can be proved that injury occurred in the course of work or under defendant’s control.

 

  1.  Counsel noted that Nigerian Courts will only look at the relationship in substance, and circumstances of injury, not the label attached to it, he referred to Sections 1, 7 and 12 of Employee’s Compensation Act 2010, and cited JEPLIN NORENSE OGIAMIEN VS. GULT MANNING SERVICES NIGERIA LTD (supra); and R. O. IYERE V. BENDEL FEED AND FLOUR MILL LTD (supra) @ pages 331-332 PARAS H-A 

 

  1.  In conclusion, claimant’s counsel urged the court to resolve the two issues for determination in favour of the Claimant by granting all the reliefs sought by him in this suit.

 

  1.  I have carefully considered the processes filed by parties, as well as the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case. I have also well considered the written submissions of counsel for both parties in their respective final address, and thereafter deduced the following issues for determination in this case:
    1. Whether or not the claimant has successfully proved his case against the defendant on the preponderance of the evidence as required in cases of personal injury in the workplace. 
    2. Whether or not the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought against the defendant.     

 

  1.  On the first issue for determination, the defendant contended that there was no employment relationship between parties as the claimant was an intern, and not a Staff of defendant. The claimant on his part pleaded and led evidence that he and some of his colleagues from Auchi Polytechnic, Edo State were invited for internship by the defendant. He testified that he was given a role of Technical Operator/Supervisor and eventually Shift Manager with the defendant, and he tendered his staff Identity card as proof of his employment. 

 

  1.  A worker is defined as a person who entered into a contract of employment or works for an employer expressly, impliedly, orally or in writing, see Section 91 of the Labour Act. Also see Shena Company Ltd v. Afropak Nig. Ltd [2008] 34 NSCQR Pt. II 1287, where a worker was defined as follows:

“A Worker is defined by the Labour Act as any person who entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied, oral or written and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour...” 

 

  1.  It is clear from the above that any person engaged in works for another party is a worker, in this instance, it is uncontroverted that the claimant was engaged as an intern, and worked at the defendant’s factory. The record further reveals that the incident in this case occurred when CW1 attempted to rectify a fault in one of defendant’s machine, and sustained an injury which resulted in the eventual amputation of his left arm. It must be noted that, the definition of “worker” in Section 91 of the Labour Act covers permanent, casual and contract staff, and in this instance, interns even if they are not paid any salary see Evans Bros. Nig. Publishers Ltd v. Falaiye [2003] 13 NWLR (Pt.838) 564, New Nigerian Bank Plc v. Osoh [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt.798) 232.

 

  1.  The fact that CW1 was being paid monthly allowance of N70,000.00 is also in evidence  and confirmed by DW1 in his evidence before this court. Payment of salary is without doubt one of the indices used to determine if there is an employment relationship between parties in the absence of an employment letter, see Shena Company Ltd V. Afropak Nig. Ltd supra. I have stated that the position of the law is that a contract of employment may be oral, written or implied in this Judgment as such, the absence of a written contract of employment will not preclude this court from deducing that an employment relationship between parties in this case. Premised on the above, the argument of defence counsel on this issue is unsustainable, as a result, I find that the claimant was employed/engaged in works for the defendant, and is therefore a worker in the defendant.

 

  1.  The evidence before this court clearly reveals that claimant sustained an injury when a  staff of the defendant switched on the machine he was working on and trying to fix its  conveyor belt at defendant’s factory. The action entrapped claimant’s left arm for more than 30 minutes causing him serious injury, and loss of blood, whereupon, he was rushed to Benin Medical Centre(BMC) but was referred to University of Benin Teaching Hospital (UBTH) because of the seriousness of his injury. The claimant was later directed to Rhemalite Spring Medical Centre, Benin City, where it was recommended that his arm be amputated to save his life. On 4th of August, 2021, the claimant was transferred to Zimran medical Centre where his arm was eventually amputated.

 

  1.  The claimant led evidence that he suffered severe pains, and was unable to work for his sustenance due to his disability, meanwhile the defendant neglected and abandoned him in his travails. He also alleged that all promises made to him by defendant were unfulfilled which forced him to rely on the benevolence of good Samaritans to feed himself, and even though he wrote the defendant, and held several meetings with them same were to no avail. The pertinent issue to be resolved by this court is whether or not the defendant is culpable for negligence with regards to the lifelong disability sustained by the claimant in this case. The Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary 5th Edition has defined Negligence as “lack of proper care and attention, careless behavior”, see UTB v. Ozoemena [2007] All FWLR (Pt.358) 1014 @1024. 

 

  1.  In forensic speech, negligence can be defined as follows: (a) a state of mind which is opposed to intention. (b) Careless conduct and (c) Breach of duty of care imposed by Common Law, and statute resulting in injury to the complainant. Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at pages 1133 to 1135 described twenty-nine (29) types or categories of negligence, and at page 1133 it is described as follows:

Negligence is generally defined as the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation; any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm, except for conduct that is intentionally, wantonly or willfully disregardful of others’ rights.

 

  1.  Also see the Court of Appeal in Musa v. Nigerian Army [2016] LPELR-41595 (CA) where negligence was described as carelessness, disregard, default inadvertence, indifference, inattention, laxity, omission, oversight, shortcoming, slackness, remissness, dereliction, heedlessness, forgetfulness and thoughtlessness”. The most fundamental ingredient of the tort of negligence is breach of duty of care, which must be actionable in law, and not just a moral liability. It follows therefore that the claimant must prove breach of duty of care with credible evidence, otherwise the action will fail. The authorities are clear that a successful plea of negligence consists of establishing the tripod issues of duty, breach and resultant damages. Negligence can neither be presumed nor inferred, where there is no notional duty to be exercised by the defendant, it will have no legs to stand and any claim premised thereon will fail. In this regard, see Omotoye v. ABC (Transport Co. Ltd) [2009] LPELR-8269(CA) where his Lordship Kekere-Ekun JCA (as he then was) reinforced the principle/basis of liability in the tort of negligence as follows: 

“In order to establish a claim for damages for negligence, the claimant must plead and prove: (A) that the defendant owed him a duty of care; (b) that the defendant failed to exercise due care; and (c) that the damages was as a result of the negligence of the defendant.”

 

  1.  In the instant case, the claimant led evidence that he sustained a serious injury while engaged in works for the defendant, as a result, his left arm was amputated. He testified further that, even though the defendant paid for his surgery and post-surgery drugs, he was later abandoned by the defendant. The claimant alleged that the loss of his arm is a lifelong disability which has inhibited him from getting a job and fending for himself, hence his claim for compensation in this suit. It is notable that these facts were not specifically traversed by the defendant, and are therefore deemed admitted, see Muomah v Enterprise Bank Ltd (2015) LPELR-24832(CA), where his Lordship Nimpar JCA held:

"The law in my view is settled that where evidence given by a party to any proceedings was not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seized of the proceedings to act on the unchallenged evidence before it. ODULAJA V HADDAD (1973) 11 SC 357; NIGERIAN MARITIME SERVICES LTD. V. ALHAJI BELLO AFOLABI (1978) 2 SC 79. Unchallenged and un-contradicted evidence ought to be accepted by the court as establishing the facts therein contained."  

 

  1.  The only defence proffered by the defendant in this case is that claimant contributed to the injury he sustained, and the defendant being a small company, is not financially capable of paying the compensation being demanded by him. The defendant further led evidence that claimant was offered a sum of N4.5million which he rejected, while they maintained that he was an intern not a permanent worker in the defendant, and the company has discharged the duty of care owed to him. The defendant however failed to lead evidence on how CW1 contributed to his own injury which resulted in his disability, they failed to call evidence on his alleged failure to take safety precautions, and how the machine operator acted under his instructions. It is worthy of note that all these allegations were denied by the claimant, and the position of the law is that it is a party who pleads a fact that must adduce evidence in support of same, as the most forensic eloquence of a brilliant lawyer cannot be substituted for an unproven fact, in such an instance, the fact will be deemed abandoned, see Ironbar v. Cross River Basin Rural Development Authority [2004] 2 NWLR Pt, 173) 359 at 375 C-F; and Sections 131, 132, 133 of the Evidence Act, 2011. 

 

  1.  The defendant failed to call evidence in support of the allegation of contributory negligence against the claimant, in addition, there is no evidence that the staff who turned on the engine acted on his instructions, or that the machine was switched on when he attempted to fix the belt. This court is therefore at a loss on how CW1 contributed to the accident, and find it difficult to ascribe any probative value to the evidence presented by defendant. On the assertions that defendant is a small company with a low share capital, I find that there is no statute, authority or principle of law that supports financial standing as a defence or mitigating factor in this type of cases. Consequent upon the above, I find that the defence in this case is spurious, watery, and frivolous.

 

  1.  It was observed that the claimants counsel in his address made copious references to the Employees Compensation Act (ECA) as the basis for the compensation claimant is seeking, but in this instance, the provisions cannot be applied by this court. The doctrine of election dictates that the claimant had an option of pursuing his case under the Employees Compensation Act(ECA) or under common law, and having elected to sue the defendant in this court vide this suit, he can no longer claim under the ECA. Consequently, the provisions of the Act is inapplicable to this case.

 

 

  1.  The general requirement of law is that once there exist a service or employment relationship, the former is under a duty to take reasonable care of the safety or well-being of the latter in all circumstances. The level of duty of care is the same as employer’s common law duty of care in negligence, see Alhaji Manu Bello v. Dadan &Anr [2016] LPELR040337 (CA). The word “care” means the conduct demanded of a person in a given situation, it also involves a person’s giving attention both to possible danger, mistake and pitfalls and to ways of minimizing risks, see Nigerian Ports Plc v. Beecham Pharmaceutical PTE Ltd [2013] 3 NWLR (Pt 1333) 454, Yabo Air Ltd v. Mohammed [2015] 5 NWLR (Pt 1451) 38. 

 

  1.  It is trite law that an employer owe their employees and clients a duty of care to exercise reasonable care and skill in rendering services for which they are engaged, see the locus classicus case of Donoghue v. Steveson [1932] AC 562; and Orhue v. N.E.P.A [1998] 7NWLR (Pt.557) 187. Consequent upon the above expositions, It is clear that defendant owed the claimant a duty of care by ensuring a safe working environment and proper supervision. Most importantly, considering the fact that claimant was an intern, who was left to work without supervision infers negligence on the defendant’s part. 

 

  1. The defendant not only breached the duty of care required of an Employer, but was also   careless and negligent in ensuring the safety of the claimant in this instance. It is without doubt the duty of an Employer to ensure a safe working environment for all workers, which the defendant failed to provide, and this ultimately led to the claimant’s lifelong permanent disability. The incident could have been averted or minimized if only the defendant provided proper supervision by an experienced staff while claimant undertook the repairs, as this is a basic precautionary measure for a staff on internship. The accident however did happen, and the claimant must be compensated having proved his case against the defendant as required in cases of personal injury in the workplace. In line with the above expositions, the first issue for determination is resolved in favour of the claimant. I so hold.

 

  1.  On the second issue for determination, the claimant is seeking five main reliefs against the defendant in this suit. The claimant vide his relief “1” is seeking an order for the defendant to purchase and deliver a prosthesis artificial limb for his use. He however failed to state the specification and cost of a prosthesis arm, this relief ought to have been claimed by way of special damages and concisely itemized or specified. In addition, same must be established with credible evidence, I have taken note that CW1 tendered Exhibit O13 which is an estimate of an artificial limb, but failure to specifically claim the monetary value, and specification in his relief is fatal to same. The law is trite that the courts will not grant an order in vain, as it stands, this relief is vague and is therefore refused. I so hold.

 

  1.  Reliefs “2” and “4” will be considered together as they are for compensation, and are like two peas in a pod. The claimant vide relief “2” is seeking a sum of N200,000,000.00k as compensation for the permanent injury sustained by him in the defendant’s employment. He is vide relief “4” also seeking N10m as cost of this suit against the defendant. It is trite law that upon a finding against an employer in a case of personal injury in the workplace, the employer is bound to compensate the aggrieved party. This court has held that the defendant was in breach of its duty of care towards the claimant, it therefore follows that the latter is entitled to compensation. In arriving at a quantum of compensation, I have considered the claimant’s evidence before this court on the permanent loss of his left arm which this court also observed in the course of trial. In addition, the claimant tendered a medical report see Exhibit O3, while Exhibit 013, i.e. an estimate for a Prosthesis Arm in the sum of USD$19000. 

 

  1.  I find that the primary basis for an award of compensation in personal injury cases is to restore a party back to his former position as much as possible, and in doing so, the court is urged to consider loss of livelihood, or earnings and future earning capacity. The loss of an arm is no doubt a permanent disability that a prosthesis/artificial arm cannot replace, but it will definitely alleviate the psychological and physical challenge which resulted from the loss. In this regard, see Section 13 of National Industrial Court Act, 2006, which empowers this court to administer both law and equity concurrently.

 

  1.  In Mr Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Service Ltd [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt 78) 374 NIC, the court held that the jurisdiction of this Court is invoked not only for the enforcement of mere contractual rights, but for preventing labor practices regarded as unfair and for restoring industrial peace on the basis of collective bargaining. It is worthy of note that the process does not cease to be judicial if the principles of justice, equity and good conscience are applied. In the Supreme Court decision in Hamza v. Kure [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt.1203) 630 SC, the court held that although personal injury, pain, discomfort and permanent scar cannot be quantified in monetary terms, the claimant is entitled to a reasonable amount in general damages.

 

  1.  In this instance, I find that the claimant having established that the defendant owed him a duty of care, and he sustained a permanent disability while he was engaged in works for the defendant, he is entitled to compensation. Also see Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, which provides for instances where the court can award compensatory damages. This provision is reproduced as follows:

S. 19 “The Court may in all other cases and where necessary make appropriate order, including-

(d) an award of compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear.”

 

  1.  In Promasidor (Nig.) Ltd & Anor. v Ashikia 2019) LPELR-CA/L/381/201, his Lordship Ogakwu J.C.A held as follows: 

“The primary object of an award of damages is to compensate the Claimant for the harm done to him……..In the award of general damages, a widespread power is given to the Court comparable to the exercise of discretion of the Court. It is enormous and therefore far-reaching. General damages are awarded to assuage the loss which flows naturally from the defendant's act. It does not have to be specifically pleaded. It suffices if it is generally averred. The general damages are presumed to be the direct and probable consequence of the act complained of. Unlike special damages, it is generally incapable of exact calculation. It is quantified by relying on what a reasonable man's judgment would be in the circumstance: ………..It was therefore proper for the lower Court to award the damages for the proven wrong done to the Original Claimant."

 

  1.  In line with the above, and considering the cost of a Zeus-Bionic hand with electronic elbow is USD$19000, see Exhibit O13, which can be quantified in Naira based on the exchange rate of Dollar to Naira issued by Central Bank Of Nigeria(CBN) as at today 11th of May 2026, which is USD$1 - N1,361. USD$19000 in Naira is calculated as follows;

USD$1 = N1361 x 19000 = N25,973,000.00K

 

  1.  In addition, the claimant is also entitled to be compensated for loss of future earnings as a result of his disability, on account of the above, I award a total sum of N45,000,000.00k to the claimant, and against the defendant as compensation for the permanent injury incurred by him while working for the defendant and loss of expectation of future earnings . I so hold. 

 

  1.  However, in respect of relief “4” for cost of this action, this court having awarded compensation against defendant finds that an award for cost this action will amount to double compensation, as a result relief “4” is discountenanced. Likewise in relief “3” wherein the claimant is seeking payment of N70,000.00k as his monthly salary from defendant from August 2021 till date. It is worthy of note that the award of compensation to the claimant for his disability includes loss future earnings in this Judgment, and as stated earlier, double compensation is frowned at by the courts. In this vein, having granted relief “2”, l find that relief ‘3’ will amount to double compensation and is hereby refused. 

 

  1.  The Claimant vide relief “5” is seeking 10% interest on the Judgment sum until the entire amount is liquidated. This is a claim for Post-Judgment interest that is supported by the rules of this court, see Order 47 Rule 7 of the NICN (Civ. Pro.) Rules, 2017. In line with the above, this relief is meritorious and therefore succeeds. I so hold.

 

  1.  In conclusion, I find that the claimant has successfully proved his case against the defendant with the preponderance of the evidence required in cases of personal injury in the workplace. The reliefs also succeed in substantial part, and for the purpose of clarity, the court hereby order as follows:
    1. A sum of N45,000,000.00k is awarded in favour of claimant as compensation for the permanent injury incurred while working for defendant as well as loss of future earnings to be paid by defendant.
    2. Reliefs “1”, “3”, and “4” are refused.  
    3. The judgment sum is to be paid within 60 days failure upon which it shall attract 10% interest per annum.

 

    N250,000.00k cost is awarded against the defendant. 

 

 

Judgment is entered.

 

 

Hon. Justice A. A. Adewemimo

Presiding Judge