SIGNIFICANT CASES- 2014

With the mandate given to the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN) under section
245C(1)(f) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, as amended, to
consider and apply best international labour practice when adjudicating on matters within its
jurisdictional competence, 2014 saw a significant number of court cases handed down by the
NICN highlighting the need for a constant interplay of equity and fair play in the workplace.
Protection of employees in cases of unfair labour practices -
The facts of Mr. Shittu Habib v Coral International Limited 1 and Abel Abel v Trevi Foundation
Nigeria Limited2 both present interesting scenarios where the NICN intervened to afford equity
to workers injured in the course of work and whom the employers, in an apparent bid to avoid
liability to pay compensatory damages, turned around to contend were not under their
employment. The NICN held that an employee need not necessarily prove his employment by a
written employment letter to maintain a claim against an employer. In both cases, the
defendant company contended that the injured employee was not its employee as at the time
of the accident. The court, in both cases, noted that even though the claimant did not show any
letter of employment from the defendant, a contract of employment could be properly inferred
from the conduct of the parties; in Abel’s case, the fact that the claimant had been doing some
work for the defendant for which the defendant paid an “allowance” to the claimant, coupled
with the issuance of a work identity card to the claimant.

The court further invoked its equitable jurisdiction to assuage the hapless employee in Habib’s
case by awarding monetary compensation to enable him obtain medical care to wit surgery to
remove metal from his leg.

Also worthy of note is the commendable effort of the NICN at expanding the hitherto seeming
inflexible principles of common law (deeply ingrained in the nation’s labour jurisprudence) to
accommodate far-reaching results for the aggrieved employee. Thus where it was established
that an employer of labour, without just and established cause, impugned the integrity of an
employee and based on this impugnation, went ahead to peremptorily terminate his
employment3, the NICN did not only condemn the act as an unfair labour practice, but went
further to hold that such a detestable practice cannot be adequately compensated by the right
to payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice which the wrongfully terminated employee
would ordinarily have been entitled to. Relying on applicable provisions of the 1999
Constitution [as altered] and the National Industrial Court Act 2006 4 which enable the court
1
Unreported Suit No: NIC/PHC/79/2013 delivered on June 26, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=625)

2
Unreported Suit No: NIC/PHC/55/2013 delivered on June 26, 2014 (can be accessed
athttp://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/contdtl.php?contC=626)

3
Unreported Suit No: NICN/AB/03/2012 Godwin OkosiOmoudu v Prof. AizeObayan&anor , judgment delivered
on October 10, 2014 (can be accessed at http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=694 )

4
section 254D [2] of the 1999 Constitution [as altered] and sections 14 & 19 [d] of the National Industrial Court
Act, 2006
to award damages as a relief for the unfair labour practice of unfair dismissal, and further
stating the position that the court can take guidance from the more elaborate provisions of
foreign statutes as to appropriate remedies when a proof of unfair dismissal is established, the
court awarded the claimant 5 months salaries as general damages, in addition to an award of
one month salary in lieu of notice.
Also, in The Registered Trustees of Union Bank & Anor V Union Bank Of Nigeria & Ors 5, the
court held that the practice of payment of 13th month (ex gratia) salary having been
consistently and regularly carried on uninterrupted for a period of 23 years, had become a
custom between claimant and the defendant to such an extent that a party could seek its
enforcement through judicial process.
Giving lucid conceptual clarifications on, inter alia, the power of the employer to suspend and
or dismiss an employee; legal consequences of ‘suspension’; and, when an allegation of conflict
of interest can be made against an employee, and the corresponding duty on the employer to
establish the allegation of conflict against the dismissed employee, the court in Mr. Peter
Olasunkanmi Atoki v Ecobank Nigeria Ltd 6 held that the defendant bank failed to establish the
conflict of interest and professional misconduct against the claimant to the satisfaction of the
court.
Recognising the statutory/reserved rights of the employer to declare situations of involuntary
and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower 7, the NICN made a case
for compliance with the letters of the applicable labour law on the requisite condition
precedent to declaring redundancy in the case of Mrs. Winifred Omage v NAIRDA Nigeria
Limited & Anor.8

Basking in the fervour of a new wave of labour-grievance remedial process that is arguably
‘pro-employee’, it is instructive to mention that the cases of Awodusi Gbenga & Ors v Total
Data Limited9and Mr. Osamota Macaulay Adekunle v United Bank for Africa Plc 10, do not
necessarily enthuse this position.

In the former, the claimants instituted the action in a representative capacity. There were 141
named claimants but only the 1st claimant testified for the claimants. The 4th claimant, who
was listed on the list of witnesses to be called, was not called to testify eventually. The court
rightly noted that even though all the claimants need not be called to testify, it was important
5
Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/555/2012, judgment delivered on October 17, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=702)
6
Unreported Suit No. NIC/LA/103/2011, delivered on June 12, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=651)
7
See section 20(3), Labour Act
8
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/63/2013, delivered on September 30, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=704)
9
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/490/2013 , judgment delivered on August 24, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=677)
10
Unreported Suit No: NICN/IB/20/2012 judgment delivered on May 21, 2014 (can be accessed at 2014
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=616)
that documents relating to each of the claimants be exhibited before the Court. That could
have been achieved by any of the witnesses since the suit was brought in a representative
capacity. The rationale in itself is unassailable. The claimants were employed vide individual
and separable contracts of employment with differing salaries and emoluments, conditions of
service, and so on. Only the 1st claimant was called to testify and the court even had to invoke
its equitable jurisdiction to rely on the documents frontloaded but which were never tendered
in evidence to avail the 4 th claimant the relief sought on the substantive suit. There was no
such document before the court to avail the remaining 142 claimants. Thus the court had to
hold that: “Failure of the other Claimants except 1 stand 4th to lead evidence in proof of their
claims has fatally damaged same…The claims of the 1st and 4th Claimants succeed in part while
those of the other claimants fail and are dismissed accordingly.”

In Osamota’s case, the claimant only sought declaratory reliefs which, by the state of the law,
cannot be executed being merely declaratory as to rights and obligations of parties. But that
was not the only pitfall. The specifics were not clearly stated, nor established. Thus, the Court
chided that even though the claimant sought a declaration that he was entitled to “all his
entitlements, salaries, allowances, bonuses, emoluments and other perquisites of office” from
September 17, 2009 when he was suspended to the date of this judgment”, those were not
shown in specific terms. As the court pithily put it: “I must stress that since the claimant’s
“entitlements, salaries, allowances, bonuses, emoluments and other perquisites of office” have
not been proved before this Court, this Court cannot make any order in their regard.”

Jurisdiction, properly so-called:

The circumscribed subject-matter jurisdiction of the NICN as an exclusive labour dispute

resolution forum came up for consideration in a few cases in the year under review. In many of
the decisions handed down on this point, the NICN reiterated that its prescribed jurisdiction
does not extend to matters with claims dealing with tax, pensions and allied issues that the
aggrieved employee often claims as ancillary to his principal claims. Thus, in Miss Odiette Hope
v Jopa Energy Ltd11, the court declined the invitation to exercise jurisdiction over a tax related
relief contained in the claim before the court. Similar decisions were handed down in Ganiyu
Kolapo Rafiu v Sara Foods Ltd12, Mr. Henry Nwosisi v Bridgeways Global Projects Ltd 13 and Ms.
Edith Ejiogu v Mainstreet Bank Estate Company Ltd. 14

11
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/408/2012, judgment delivered on March 31, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=579)

12
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/388/2012, judgment delivered on September 30, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=579)
13
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/147/2013, judgment delivered on October 9, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=641 )

14
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/48/2013, judgment delivered on June 9, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=579 )
In Sir H.U.C. Chukwudire & Ors. v Governor of Imo State & Ors .15, the NICN also had an
opportunity to affirm its inelastic jurisdiction as not extending to tenancy related issues.
The NICN has similarly refused to adjudicate over matters involving contractual relationships
between an independent contractor and the hirer in Mr. Abdul Fatai Yahaya v Hui Lan Jie
Mineral Resources Nigeria Limited & Anor.16and Chief Ben G. Ugwu (Trading under the name
and style of Ben Ugwu & Co.) & Anor v Mr. Augustine Chukwueggu & Anor. 17

Non-compliance with a condition precedent to the court exercising jurisdiction on a relief

conferred on an employee under the Employee’s Compensation Act 2010 was successfully
raised, and argued in Mr. Mashood Ilupeju v PZ Cussons Nigeria Plc18.

NICN, still a final court:

As presently constituted therefore, the law is that a litigant who is not satisfied with the
decision of the NICN can only appeal as of right where such decision relates to questions of
fundamental rights as contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of
Nigeria 1999 (as amended) or in criminal cases as they relate to matters upon which the NICN
has jurisdiction. As to other causes or matters not so specified appeal shall only lie from
decisions of the NICN to the Court of Appeal as may be prescribed by an Act of the National
Assembly and such appeal shall be with leave of the Court of Appeal.
There is presently no such Act of the National Assembly and until there is an enactment to that
effect or a subsequent amendment of section 243 of the Constitution, the NICN remains the
final and ultimate court in all causes or matters upon which it has jurisdiction except in
decisions relating to questions of fundamental rights connected with Chapter IV of the
Constitution or in criminal causes.
The foregoing was recently re-affirmed by the Court of Appeal of Nigeria (Lagos Judicial
Division) in the reported decision of Lagos Sheraton Hotel and Towers v. Hotel and Personal
Services Association19.

15
Unreported Suit No. NIC/OW/07/2013, ruling delivered June 30, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=635)
16
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/12/2013, ruling delivered on June 4, 2014, (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=623)
17
Unreported Suit No: NIC/LA/294/2012, judgment delivered on May 6, 2014, (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=618)
18
Unreported Suit No: NICN/LA/406/2012, judgment delivered on April 29, 2014 (can be accessed at
http://judgment.nicn.gov.ng/cont-dtl.php?contC=592)
19
Reported in [2014] 14 Nigeria Weekly Law Reports (NWLR) (Pt. 1462) 45 at 70. The decision was delivered on
15th July, 2014