ADELEKE A. OJABANJO VS INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL

IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA

IN THE YENAGOA JUDICIAL DIVISION

HOLDEN AT YENAGOA

BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE BASHAR A. ALKALI

DATE: OCTOBER 2, 2018

SUIT NO: NIC/YEN/429/2016

BETWEEN

ADELEKE A. OJABANJO

CLAIMANT

AND

INDUSTRIAL AND GENERAL INSURANCE PLC

DEFENDANT

REPRESENTATION

Mr. D.U. Ezumezu Esq. appearing for the Claimant.

Mr.W. R. Dienagha Esq. holding the brief of A.I Uhuanwagho appearing for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

INTRODUCTION AND CLAIMS

The Claimant by complaint dated 15^th November, 2016 and filled on the same date approached the court and sought for the following reliefs:

“The Claimant claims against the Defendant is the sum of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) only as entitlement upon disengagement from the Defendant’s service and as damages for the Defendant’s failure to faithfully remit deductions from Claimants salaries as Claimant’s contributions to the compulsory pension fund, failure to faithfully pay her counterpart contribution to the said fund and also for failing to pay the aforesaid entitlement within time thus occasioning losses, pain and trauma to the claimant”.

The Claimant also filed Statement of Facts, Witness Deposition on Oath and List of Documents to be relied upon in the cause of trial.

The Defendant entered appearance on 18^th January, 2017. The Defendant filed Statement of Defence, Witness Statement on Oath and List of Documents to be relied upon in the cause of trial all dated 20^th January, 2017 and filed on the 24^th January, 2017. In the cause of trial, the Claimant testified on the 14^th day of December, 2017 as CW1 and was equally cross examined on the 14^th day of March, 2018. The Claimant tendered 16 EXHIBITS (EXHIBITS CW1 AD 001 TO EXHIBITS CW1 AD 016). The Branch Manager of the Defendant by name Olugbenga Fagba testified on the 14^th day of March, 2018 on behalf of the Defendant and he was equally cross examined on the same date. The witness tendered four exhibits (EXHIBIT DW1 001 TO EXHIBIT DW1 004). At the close of the trial, this court ordered parties to file their Final Written Addresses which same were filed and adopted on the 10^th day of July, 2018.

THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant’s case is that he was a staff of the Defendant for over 16 years and was among the other staff of the Defendant who were disengaged of their services in a nationwide mass disengagement on the 22^nd day of September, 2015.

Claimant further stated that until his disengagement he was the Defendant’s branch Manager overseeing the Warri Branch Office. Claimant also stated that upon his disengagement, he waited for his benefits and entitlements to be paid but when the said benefits and entitlements were not forthcoming, he wrote to the Defendant demanding for the said benefits on the 26^th November, 2015 (EXHIBIT CW1 AD 010). The Defendant in response to Claimant’s demand stated that they have computed Claimant’s entitlements to the tune of N5,749,408.00 (Five Million, Seven Hundred and Forty Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Eight Naira) only but has however deducted some outstandings which then reduced it to the sum of N2,691,356.00 (Two Million, Six Hundred and Ninety One Thousand, Three Hundred and Fifty Six Naira).

The Claimant however disputed the above sum on the ground that the applicable computation to him as at the time of disengagement based on status and level in the Defendant’s company was provided in Article 3.6 and 3.6.1. of the Defendants employee handbook (EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014) pursuant to which the Claimant computed the entitlement due to him to the tune of N7, 492,785.14 (Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Fourteen Kobo).

The Claimant in his witness deposition also stated that aside the failure of the Defendant to pay the actual computed entitlements to the Claimant, the Defendant equally failed to remit faithfully deductions made from Claimant’s monthly salary to the pension fund manager and also failed to remit her own counter-part contribution faithfully. The said failures of the Defendant caused Claimant the interest of the unpaid amount would have attracted. The Claimant being aggrieved seeks the reliefs as set out in the complaint as well as paragraph 21 of his Statement of Facts.

CASE OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant in defence of his case filed a Statement of Defence as well as a Witness Deposition on Oath. The Defendant denied that it has refused to pay the Claimant his disengagement entitlements. The Defendants referred to its letters dated 23^rd December, 2015 and 7^th December, 2015 wherein the computations of the entitlements were set out. The Defendant further averred that despite the detailed explanation in the said letters, the Claimant failed to come forward to collect his entitlements.

The Defendant computed N5,205,841 (Five Million, Two Hundred and Five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty One Naira) as final entitlement of the Claimant and that the sum of N1,105,140 (One Million, One Hundred and Five Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Naira) representing July and August 2015 salary had already been credited to the Claimant’s bank account, thereby leaving a balance of N4,100,701 (Four Million, One Hundred Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Naira).

THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT

The Defendant raised a lone issue for determination as follows:

Whether the Claimant from the totality of the evidence is entitled to the sum of N100, 000, 000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) damages following his disengagement from the service of the company.

Counsel to the Defendant answered to the issue formulated above in the negative. Counsel to the Defendant stated further that the evidence of the Claimant before this Court is that the Defendant has not paid him all his benefits since his disengagement. Claimant went further to give figures of the amount he expected the Defendants to pay him. In paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 21 of his Statement on Oath, the Claimant enumerated various amounts which were his entitlements upon his disengagement from the services of the Defendant.

It is also the contention of the Defendant that the Claimant somersaulted by now praying this Court for the award of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as damages. That the Claimant completely abandoned the demand for his disengagement benefits which he tried unsuccessfully to prove from his averments in the Statement of Facts and his Witness Deposition.

The Defendants further submitted that a Statement of Claim must contain all the material facts being alleged. The Statement of Claim must conclude with the relief or remedy claimed which is called “the prayer” and the practice is for the prayer to come at the end of the Statement of Claim. That if the Claimant omits to ask for any relief or remedy in his Statement of Claim, the court will not formulate any one for him. Referred to Page 62 of BULLEN AND LEAK, 16^th Edition, on Principles of Pleadings.

It is the submission of the Defendant that both the Complaint and Statement of Facts were emphatic and both prayed for N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) damages arising from the contract of employment.

If the reliefs or prayers of the Claimant is for N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira), the Defendant questioned how the Claimant arrived at N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira). The Defendant further contends that there is no proof whatsoever before this Court how the Claimant arrived at N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira). The Defendant went further to state that the Claimant has not told this court whether the N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) is a special damage or general damages. Counsel to the Defendant referred to Section 131(1) of the Evidence Act which states that whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts must prove that those facts exist.

It is the contention of the Defendant that damages are classified as Special or General. In the case of N.B.B.B. CO. LTD VS. ACB LTD (2004) 1 SC (PT. 1) 32 @ 37, the Court held that a damage is special in the sense that if it is easily discernible and quantified. It should not rest on puerile conception or notion which would give rise to speculation, approximation or estimate or such like fractions.

The Claimant in his adopted Statement on Oath as well as Statement of Facts, while claiming N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) said “wherefore (sic) the Claimant claim against the Defendant is the sum of N100, 000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) only as entitlement upon disengagement from the Defendant’s service and damages for the Defendant’s failure to faithfully remit deductions from Claimant’s salaries as Claimant’s contribution to the compulsory pension fund, failure to faithfully pay her counterpart contribution to the said fund and also for failing to pay the aforesaid entitlement within time thus occasioning losses, pain and trauma to the Claimant”.

The case of N.B.B.B. CO. LTD VS. ACB LTD (SUPRA) at page 40 held that; A business venture to my mind can be said to be a commercial or individual intercourse or transaction with commercial or trading flavour. It could be perilous and be a risky undertaking and therefore may be marked by its vulnerable nature – a term being a short form of adventure, does not confer any benefits or be said to connote by its nature, profitability as it is no more than what it says. If I fail to see how a loss or profit can be said to have occasioned by reason of a mere existence of a business proposition where there are no facts to show the risk taken to afford the court the opportunity to determine the nature and character of the claim made.

The Defendant argued further that the Claimant has not lead evidence to prove to this Court the trauma he suffered for failure of the Defendant and Claimant to reach an agreement on the total entitlement due to the Claimant. Cited the case of SHENA SECURITY COMPANY LTD VS. AFROPAK NIG. LTD AND ORS, NSCQLR, 2008 VOL 34 (PART 2) PAGE 1287 AT 1317.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE CLAIMANT

The Claimant in his Written Address dated and filed on 4^th June, 2018 formulated two issues for determination as follows:

Whether the Claimant has not proved his case to be entitled to judgment.
Whether the issues raised in the Defendant’s Final Written Address has merit.

On the First Issue, that is whether the Claimant has not proved his case to be entitled to judgment, Claimant submitted that he has proved his case on the preponderance of evidence. Without doubt, this case is a dispute as to the actual entitlement due to the Claimant upon the termination of his employment by the Defendant. Claimant averred that the starting point in determining this matter is Article 3.6 and 3.6.1. of EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014. The Claimant pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Statement on Oath without contravention or challenges that he was in the employment of the Defendant for 16 years and that at the time of his disengagement, his salary was N552,270.00 (Five Hundred and Fifty Two Thousand, Two Hundred and Seventy Naira) only. Refers to EXHIBIT CW1 AD 012 (letter dated 7/1/2015 and attachment thereon) showing the salary/grade of the Claimant with effect from 30^th November, 2014. Claimant submits that EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 is what regulates the scheme of service of employees of the Defendant.

That having established the fact in Article 3.6.1. in EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 that an employee who has put in 15 years and above is entitled to 14 weeks basic salary for each completed year of service, the Claimant averred that his entitlement is 14 weeks of his basic salary for the 16 years he put into the service of the Defendant. Claimant further avers that he is also entitled to be paid salaries and all allowances due at the date of disengagement as well as full payment of employer and employee contributions from the pension scheme. Claimant noted that the Defendant failed to comply with the said Article 3.6.1. as the Claimant was not paid the said entitlements or contributions from the pension scheme as at the date of disengagement. Claimant specifically states that this is a wrong done to him by the Defendant.

It is the submission of the Claimant that in paragraph 9 and 10 of the Statement of Facts, the Claimant made a calculation of his entitlements in accordance with Article 3.6.1. of EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 and came up with the sum of N7,492,785.14 (Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Fourteen Kobo) based on which Claimant made his calculation. The law is trite that uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence should be accepted by the Court. Cited the case of MOBIL PRODUCING NIG VS. UDO (2009) ALL FWLR, PT482, PG 1177 @ PG 1202-1203, PARAS. H-A.

The Claimant further pleaded and testified that the Defendant failed to correctly remit deductions from his salaries to the pension fund managers engaged by the Defendant for the purpose of the mandatory contributory pension savings.

The Claimant testified that the practice is for the Claimant to contribute 5% of his basic salary, transport and housing allowances as his contribution to the compulsory pension fund while the Defendant was to contribute 10% as his employer of his said basic salary, transport and housing allowances. The Claimant further avers though the percentage change sometimes the Defendant religiously made this deduction from January 2000 till September, 2015 but failed to remit same faithfully and thus made the Claimant to lose money.

Also, that the Claimant averred in his Statement of Fact and also gave evidence to the effect that had the Defendant faithfully paid their own contributions, his total savings with the pension managers would have been the sum of N2,033,764.45k (Two Million, Thirty Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Sixty Four Naira, Forty Five Kobo) excluding interest thereon.

Claimant however averred that his statement of account with the pension manager showed the sum of N1, 255, 553.74K (One Million, Two Hundred and Fifty Five Thousand, Five Hundred and Fifty Three Naira, Seventy Four Kobo) making a total credit balance of N1, 558,887.58k (One Million, Five Hundred and Fifty Eight Thousand, Eight Hundred and Eighty Seven Naira, Fifty Eight Kobo) in the said account. What was unremitted by the Defendant was the sum of N778, 210.71k (Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Ten Naira, Seventy One Kobo), which is aside the interest that it would have earned. Claimant submits that he is entitled to this money and damages from the unearned interest and the losses therefrom. Claimant refers to EXHIBIT CW1 AD 003 by which the Claimant complained to the Defendant when he observed the breach in the remittances but the Defendant did not respond as at the time. Claimant further submit that by the Defendant’s EXHIBIT DW1 002 they asserted that what is due to the Claimant from the pension fund is the sum of N1, 938,642.75k (One Million, Nine Hundred and Thirty Eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Forty Two Naira, Seventy Five Kobo). Claimant submits that even by their own showing in EXHIBIT DW1 002, the Defendant only accounted for the period of 2005 to 2015 but could not account for the remittances for the period of 2000 to 2005. Claimant further submit that it is the failure to account for this said period of 2000 to 2005 that is the difference between the Claimant’s credit balance and the Defendant’s credit balance, thus corroborating the Claimants position.

Claimant also averred that it is part of his case that in line with statutory provisions, the Defendant deducted the sum of N146, 494.83k (One Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Four Naira, Eighty Three Kobo) in the course of his employment with the Defendant as mandatory contribution to the National Housing Fund but failed to remit same to the said National Housing Fund made by the Defendant without remittal. Refers to Paragraph 10 of the Statement of Facts which was uncontroverted and unchallenged.

That, it is Claimant’s submission that the Defendant is obligated to return this sum and equally pay damages for failure to remit same to the said National Housing Fund and made him to lose the benefits arising from the contributions. Claimant also pleaded and testified without controversion that since he left the Defendant’s employment, he has started a business as an insurance broker and had the Defendant paid him his benefits and entitlements within time, he would have used part of the money to expand his brokage firm. Claimant then submits that the Defendant’s failure to pay his money within time has limited his operations and equally made him to suffer other losses.

The Claimant then submits that he also has proved his case before this court and that he is entitled to judgment. That Claimant has shown the various sums of money he is entitled to from the Defendant upon his disengagement and on why the court should equally grant him damages.

And that general damages as a rule unlike special damages are not quantifiable. General damages unlike special damages are generally incapable of exact calculation. They are presumed by the law to be direct and probable consequences of the act complained of. Cited the authorities of MOBIL PRODUCING NIG VS. UDO (2009) ALL FWLR PT. 482, PG 1177 @ 1213, PARAS. H; S.P.D.C. VS. OKONEDO (2009) ALL FWLR, PT. 368, PG 1104.

Further, Claimant submits that the Defendant is yet to pay the Claimant his entitlement which is clearly wrong as the law is that ubi jus ubi remedium. Also that the Defendant religiously made deductions from the Claimant’s salary for the compulsory and mandatory contributory pension scheme. The Defendants did not only fail to remit same to the pension managers faithfully but also failed to faithfully pay her own counterpart contribution to the pension scheme. Claimant avers that considering the impunity with which the Defendant dealt with the Claimant, the Damages sought by the Claimant is punitive and aggravated damages.

The law has defined aggravated and punitive damages to be damages considered to be compensatory awards where the circumstances of the infliction of the wrong including the motive of the Defendant are taken into account when assessing the appropriate level of compensation. Cited the authorities NATIONAL MARITIME AUTHORITY VS. MARINE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES INC. (2008) ALL FWLR PT 446, PG 1916, PG 1958 PARAS B-C; ALHAJI M.C. DAHIRU VS. ALHAJI MUSA BUBAKARE KAMALE (2006) ALL FWLR, PT 295, PG 616.

Claimant then urged the Court to hold that on the balance of probability, he has proved his case to be entitled to judgment as claimed which is the sum of N100, 000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) comprising of the sum of N7, 492,785.14k (Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Fourteen Kobo) and also his unremitted N778, 210.71k (Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Ten Naira, Seventy One Kobo) to the insurance pension fund and the sum of N146,499.83k (One Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Nine Naira, Eighty Three Kobo) as contribution to the National Housing Fund while the rest of N100,000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) are aggravated, punitive and exemplary damages against the Defendant.

Finally, the Claimant urged this Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant and hold that the Claimant has proved his case on preponderance of evidence by documents and evidence led before this Honourable Court.

On the Second Issue, that is whether the issues raised in the Defendants final written address has merit, it is the contention of Claimant that first, that the Claimant did not sue for unlawful dismissal/termination and thus the case of SHENA SECURITY COMPANY LTD VS. AFRO PAK NIG LTD AND ORS (SUPRA) relied upon by the Defendant is inapplicable to this case.

Secondly, Claimant avers that his entitlement is not something to be negotiated or something to be agreed upon between the Claimant and the Defendant as it clear from Article 3.6.1. of EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014. Thus, the Defendant’s argument that the Claimant and the Defendant were unable to reach an agreement as to what is payable as Claimant’s entitlement upon his disengagement is spurious and disingenuous. Claimant therefore urged this Court to discountenance it as what is clear before this Court is that the Defendant failed or refused to pay to the Claimant what is clear from Article 3.6.1.

Thirdly, the Claimant’s claim is a lump sum claim, for the Claimant’s entitlement upon his disengagement from the Defendant, damages for failure to pay the entitlement since 2015 when the Claimant left the employment of the Defendant, Claimant’s unremitted money to the mandatory contributory pension scheme which the Defendant failed to remit religiously. Also, unremitted money to the National Housing Fund and money due to the Claimant as the Defendant’s Counterpart contribution to the mandatory insurance contribution. All these made up the lump sum claim. The lump sum claim also include damages for the various wrongs, injuries and infractions. Claimant thus submits that it is allowed in law for a claimant to make a lump sum claim for all the head of claim. Cited MOBIL PRODUCING NIG VS. UDO (2009) ALL FWLR, PT 482, PG 1177 @ PG 1212-1213, PARAS. H-B.

Claimant further submits that the Defendant has made the Claimant go through a lot of hardship due to the deliberate ill treatment of the Defendant.

Also, the Claimant pleaded and testified without challenge or controversion. That the reason the Defendant failed to pay the Claimant’s entitlement is that they do not want him to plough into his insurance brokage firm which the Claimant started after he left the employment of the Defendant.

Claimant further refers to the case of JAMB VS. WICKLIFFE (2005) ALL FWLR PT. 251, 255 @ PG 278, PARAS. F-H where the court held that in a proper case, damages for mental distress can be recovered in contract. Thus, if the contracting party breaks his contract, damages can be given for the disappointment, the distress, the upset, embarrassment and frustration by the breach. The Plaintiff will only be compensated for what is fair or adequate in the prevailing circumstances.

Claimant also cited the case of FEDERAL MORTGAGE FINANCE LTD VS. EKPO (2005) ALL FWLR PT. 248, PG. 1667 @ 1687, PARAS. D-E.

Finally, Claimant aver that damages have been defined to mean the sum of money which a person wronged is entitled to recover from the wrong doer as compensation for the wrong. It has also been defined as pecuniary compensation, obtainable in action for a wrong which is either a tort or a breach of contract, the compensation being in the form of a lump sum awarded at the time unconditionally and generally. Cited the decision in the case of MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. VS. UDO (2009) ALL FWLR, PT 482, PG 1177 @ PG 1212-1213 PARAS. H-B.

Finally, the Claimant averred that the issue raised by the Defendant in his Written Address have no merit and thus urged this Court to so hold.

COURT’S DECISION

I have read and understood all the processes filed by the Learned Counsels for the parties in this suit. I heard the testimonies of the witnesses called on Oath by the parties, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the Exhibits tendered and admitted. I have also heard the Oral submissions of Learned Counsel for either side. Having done all these, I narrow the issues for determination of this case down to the following:

Whether taking into consideration the circumstances of the case, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought.

On the lone issue of whether taking into consideration the circumstances of this case, the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought, it is trite that uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence should be accepted by the Court. See MOBIL PRODUCING NIG. VS. UDO (2009) ALL FWLR PT 482, PG 1177 @ PG 1202-1203, PARAS. H-A. Also, it is the duty of the court to strictly interpret the document that gives right to the contracted relationship.

Furthermore, under a contract of employment the court is not entitled to look out side the contract of service as to the terms and conditions. The parties to the contract are bound by the four walls of the contract and the only duty of the court is to strictly interpret the document that gives right to the contractual relationship in the interest of justice. See DAUDU Vs U.B.A PLC (2004) 9 NWLR (PT. 878) 276 C.A; AKINFE VS U.B.A PLC (2007) 10 NWLR (PT. 1041) 185. And the terms and conditions governing the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant is Exhibit CW1 AD 014.

Having said these, the Claimant was in the employment of the defendant for 16 years. The dispute before this Court is the actual entitlement due to the Claimant upon the termination of his appointment by the Defendant. EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 is what regulates the scheme of Service of employees of the Defendant. Article 3.6 and 3.6.1. of EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014, spelt out the entitlements of employees with the Defendant. The Claimant has proved through Exhibits that an employee of 15 years and above is entitled to 14 weeks basic salary for each completed year of service. The said Article 3.6.1. also provides that salaries and all allowances due at the date of redundancy as well as full payment of employer and employee’s contribution from the pension scheme. It is my considered view that were there are rules and regulations governing the entitlements of employees, such conditions of service like this instant case must be complied with. See DAUDU VS U.B.A PLC (SUPRA).

The Claimant has pleaded that he was employed by the Defendant for a period of 16 years, and is entitled to 14 weeks basic salary for each completed year for the 16 years he puts into the services of the Defendant, that he is also entitled to be paid salaries and all allowances due at the date of his disengagement as well as full payment of employer and employee contributions from the pension scheme.

Claimant pleaded that the Defendant failed to comply with the said Article 3.6.1. in EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 as the Claimant has not been paid the said entitlements or contributions from the pension scheme after he was disengaged in 2015. And DW1 failed to explain to this court how they arrived at the said sum which they claimed is the actual entitlements of the Claimant since Exhibits DW1 001 – 003 are not self-explanatory.

Furthermore, the Claimant made a calculation of his entitlement in accordance with Article 3.6.1. of EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 and came up with the sum of N7, 492,785.14k as his exit benefit (See Paragraph 9 and 10 of the Statement of Facts). However, the Defendant stated in paragraph 4 of her Statement of Defence that the Claimant’s exit benefit was the sum of N4, 100,701.00 (Four Million, One Hundred Thousand, Seven Hundred and One Naira) only but under cross examination, the Defendant’s only witness could not tell this Court under what scheme of service the Defendant’s calculation was made or under what provision of EXHIBIT CW1 AD 014 it was made or how the Defendant arrived at the said calculation.

In view of the forgoing facts I enumerated ab-initio I hold that the Claimant has satisfactorily proved his case and as such he is entitled to the reliefs claimed. It is pertinent to state here that the Claimant is entitled to compensation having proved his case. See Section 19 (d) of the NIC Act, 2006. Judgment is hereby entered in favour of the Claimant.

Finally for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this judgment:

That the Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant his entitlements due at the date of his disengagement as well as full payment of the employer and employee contributions from the pension scheme in the sum of N7,492,785.14k (Seven Million, Four Hundred and Ninety Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Eighty Five Naira, Fourteen Kobo).
The Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of N778, 210.71K (Seven Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand, Two Hundred and Ten Naira, Seventy One Kobo) as the sum unremitted by the Defendant to the Claimant’s pension fund manager.
The Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of N146, 494.83 (One Hundred and Forty Six Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety Four Naira, Eight Three Kobo) as Claimant’s mandatory contribution to the National Housing Fund but which the Defendant failed to remit to the National Housing Fund.
The Defendant is hereby ordered and directed to pay the Claimant the sum of N2, 000,000 (Two Million Naira) only as damages for the Defendant’s Failure to faithfully remit deductions from the Claimant’s salaries as Claimants contribution to the compulsory pension fund, failure of the Defendant to faithfully pay her counterpart contribution to the said fund and also for failing to pay the aforesaid entitlements within time thus occasioning losses, pain and trauma to the Claimant. And this is in line with the provisions of Section 19 (d) of the NIC Act 2006.