IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE ABUJA JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT ABUJA
Before His Lordship:-
HON. JUSTICE E.D. E ISELE – JUDGE
DATE: 23RD MAY, 2017 NICN/ABJ/302/2012
BETWEEN
BASIL ONYEBUCHI OKORO – CLAIMANT
AND
NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM
CORPORATION – DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION: Parties absent Sir Christian M. Ebenebe for the Claimant. Aja N. Aja for the Defendant.
JUDGMENT
This suit was originally commenced at the Federal High Court Abuja on the 14th October 2011 and subsequently transferred to this Court on the 16th of November, 2012. In this Court it first came up before Adejumo J. President National Industrial Court of Nigeria (PNICN) on the 11th December 2012 and was thereafter transferred to be heard before me. The matter first came up here on the 22nd July, 2013. By the claim indorsed in the processes of 14th October 2011, the claimant claims the following:-
(a) A DECLARATION that the Claimant is entitled to reinstatement to his employment in the Defendant company
(b) AN ORDER of Court compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant
- i)His arrears of salary with effect from 1st August 1993 until final Judgment of the Court is delivered in this cause
- ii)All his leave entitlements from 1st August 1993 to this date
iii) Be granted his due promotion, which he lost during his years of unlawful incarceration; and
- iv)The medical bills expended at hospital
(c) GENERAL DAMAGES for the sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only as a result of non-reinstatement over the years; and
(d) The cost of litigating this matter for the sum of N1,500,000.00 (One Million, Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only.
THE CASE OF THE CLAIMANT
By his amended witness statement on oath filed on the 1st of November 2013, it is the case of the Claimant that he was a bonafide staff of the Defendant employed by exhibit A on the 30th of May 1979 as a Radio/Telex Operator on salary grade level 15/14 with (ID) card No 2724. That soon after his employment, with the Defendant Company, he was on the 6th of June 1979 deployed to Aba Depot from Base Admin/Personnel Services Port Harcourt by exhibit A1. That his appointment with the Defendant was confirmed as permanent by exhibit A2 on 3rd October 1980 after which he was given annual increment in exhibit A3 on 4th June 1981.
He maintained that before the incident which caused this suit he had served in many stations (out posts) of the Defendant Company such as Aba, Makurdi, Calabar and Port Harcourt throughout which period he was never found wanting in the performance of his duties and never received any queries or official reprimand or query. He tendered exhibit B the letter of his transfer from Makurdi to Calabar which the Defendant was put on notice to produce the Original at the hearing.
The Claimant states that his problem with the Defendants started when to his consternation men of the State Security Services (SSS) came to his house on the 16th July, 1993 at Port Harcourt and picked him up claiming he was Mr. Uche Marcus Okoro, the then Chairman of NUPENG, Staff Union. That all his efforts to convince the SSS and the weighty evidence of some NUPENG Union members that he was a different person from the then NUPENG Chairman was not considered by the SSS. As a result he stated he was unjustly detained and incarcerated in the dark prison cells for a period of (6) six years between 1994 and 2000, first at Benin Prison and later transferred to the maximum security prison Kirikiri Lagos. That it was the benevolence of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, then president of Nigeria who graciously granted amnesty to many persons unjustly detained who had been awaiting trial for over five (5) years that he regained his freedom on March 15th 2000.
He states that he had developed partial blindness resulting to serious visual impairment ‘For which he had to undergo surgery in both eyes at University College Hospital Ibadan after which he spent two (2) years recuperating. For which he tendered exhibit C of 21st January, 2008 and C1 of 7th March 2005. He maintains that after he was discharged from hospital (UCH), He reported to his last place of deployment prior to his arrest at PPMC Port Harcourt where the Area Manager, directed him to report to the Corporate Headquarters of the Defendant Company for the purpose of reinstatement. He states that in Obedience to the Directive he went to the Corporate Headquarters Abuja and met the then Group General Manager (G.GM) Personnel, Mr. J. Akugh who promised endlessly to look in to his case, for which he received no positive response before Mr. J. Akugh retired from service and his case handed over to the GGM Personnel Mrs. Lilian Adegbite who was assisted by Mr. I.B. Timothy. He maintains that after a long wait; expensive and fruitless trips to Abuja from Port Harcourt for a period of about 2 years he was directed by the GGM Personnel to obtain clearance from the Staff Union – NUPENG to show that he was in the employment of the Defendant Company and a member of the Union. He states that he complied and obtained the requested identification letter from the Staff Union, to prove that he was a staff of the Defendant Company NNPC for which he tendered exhibit D the NUPENG letter of confirmation of his arrest, detention and subsequent discharge of 10th August 2006.
The Claimant also maintained that Mr. Uche Marcus Okoro the then NUPENG Chairman in whose stead he was arrested wrongfully appeared before the then GGM Personnel Mr. J. Akugh and confessed that indeed the SSS arrested him (Basil) in the belief that he was Uche Marcus. And he had made several representation and pleas for his reinstatement and for the payment of his entitlements without success; as a result he was constrained to retain the services of his solicitors to use every lawful means to get the Defendant (who abandoned him in his predicament even as their confirmed staff) to re-instate him to his employment and pay him all his entitlements.
The Claimant maintains that his Lawyers wrote the Defendants on 2nd of November 2010, giving it notice to act towards peaceful resolution of his pathetic human problem, a letter which was admitted as exhibit E to E3. That his Lawyers wrote a reminder giving the Defendantone month notice by exhibit E4. The Claimant went on to state that he has suffered Shock Odium, dehumanization, psychological and emotional trauma and had lost his valuable youthful years as a result of the wrongful detention and protracted loss of employment and earning. He maintained further that after surviving the unjustifiable detention and costly hospitalization. On 7th day of May 2000, barely two (2) months after, the House where he lived at Chief Chinda’s compound. Wimpey Junction; Port Harcourt, Rivers State was engulfed and destroyed by fire, and in the fire incident, he lost all his certificates house items and documents including his employment papers/letters with the Defendant Company for which he deposed to an affidavit of loss of documents at the High Court Registry, Port Harcourt Rivers State on 15th July, 2007 in exhibit G.
He maintained that since the year 2000 when he reported to the Defendant for re-instatement, the Defendant had never given him any hearing with respect to the predicament nor did the Defendant issue him any query for his absence from duty during the years of his detention or issue him with a letter terminating his employment. He maintained that in the course of his protracted detention he lost his father two daughters and an uncle because he was the one providing for their care and upkeep. He also stated that all documents, correspondence and/or receipts relating to his employment with the Defendant Company, his hospitalization at the University Hospital Ibadan and the unfortunate fire incident which destroyed among his other household valuables, the documents of his employment with the Defendant Company were to be relied on at the trial and he put the Defendant on notice to produce all the documents in their custody.
THE DEFENDANTS CASE
In the Statement of Defence filed on the 27th of March 2014, the Defendant maintained that it was going to contend (and if did) at the trial that:
(a) The (sic) plaintiff (Claimant) is not a proper party to the suit as the name of the plaintiff is Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and not NNPC PLC
(b) The action is statute barred as the cause of action if any, arose in 2000 and not in 2011 when the plaintiff instituted this action.
(c) That this action was filed by the plaintiff in contravention of the pre-action Notice Condition as stated in section 12(2) of the NNPC Act cap 320 LFN, 1990. In its defence Defendant denied being the employer of the Claimant. It also denied that the Claimant was deployed to Aba from Port Harcourt in June 1979, it denied the Claimant was confirmed in October 1980, it denied also any increment of June 1981 to the Claimant and denied that the Claimant had served in many out posts and stations of the Defendant.
The Defendant also denied that the Claimant was ever arrested and detained by the Prisons and the SSS for which it tendered exhibits DC2 a letter dated 15th December 2011 and exhibits DC and DC1 dated 30th January, 2012 from the National Headquarters of the Department of State Services. The Defendant then went on to maintain that if at all the Claimant was actually detained as claimed, he should channel his ordeal to the Federal Government and not the Defendant. The Defendant also denied that the Claimant was directed by the PPMC Port Harcourt to report to the Defendant Headquarters in Abuja.
The Defendant also averred that there were a lot of discrepancies and inconsistencies on the part of the Claimant, these were:
- a)The Claimant stated in one of his appeal letters that he was unjustly sacked for fighting a driver and pleaded for reinstatement. The Defendant tendered this letter which was admitted as exhibit DA to DA2 which it received on 9th July 2001.
- b)The Claimant suddenly changed his appeal to a letter of reinstatement claiming he was in prison for mistaken identity. The Defendant tendered this letter as exhibit DB & DB1 which it received on 15th April, 2002.
- c)That on the 17th of May, 2005, the Claimant in his letter of reinstatement addressed to the Defendant claimed that his name is Ben Okoro. The said letter was exhibit DA3.
- d)The Defendant also maintained that there are discrepancies in the date of discharge from prison. That the discharge certificate submitted by the Claimant indicated that he was discharged from prison on the 29th of May 1998 while in his statement of claim he stated that he was discharged on 15th of March 2000. This certificate was admitted in evidence as exhibit DC1.
The Defendant then asked the Court to dismiss this suit with heavy and substantial costs as being frivolous, speculative, gold digging and abuse of judicial process and a waste of the Court’s precious time.
THE CLAIMANT’S REPLY
Here, the Claimant maintained that the Defendant is NNPC whether Plc or Limited and sought to rely on processes filed by the Defendant after it had entered appearance. He maintained further that the action is not statute barred as no termination letter had been served on him. He insisted that his lawyers had issued two pre-action notices on the Defendant. He also averred that the Defendant had filed a preliminary objection to the effect that this action is statute barred to which he filed a counter affidavit, after which the P.O was abandoned by the Defendant and the Court dispensed with it in his favour. Here, he tendered exhibits I, J to J14, K and exhibit H at the trial.
He maintained that he is not in any way connected to with exhibits DC2 and DC letters from the Deputy Comptroller of Prisons and Department of State Security Services. He insisted that the Defendant received all the documents relating to pre-action notice as same were all endorsed by the Defendant though the Defendant failed and or neglected to stamp them in order to make a case as the Defendant was now doing in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Witness Statement on Oath of DW1 and 12 and 13 of the Statement of Defence.
He maintains that he did not submit any of the alleged documents in exhibits DA to DA2 and DB & DB1 to the Defendant. Neither did he submit the letter in exhibit DA3 of 17th May 2005 with his name as Ben Okoro as against Basil Okoro. He also denied submitting the certificate of discharge from Prison exhibit DC1 as he was never arraigned before any trial Court as alleged in the fictions certificate as the ID numbers therein were not his and he urged the Court to discountenance the Defendant’s evasive defence which did not deny the fact of his employment with the Defendant or exhibit any letter with which his employment was terminated.
THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES
Under cross examination the Claimant told the Court that his family contacted the NNPC to inform them of his arrest. Asked whether his family contacted the Branch Manager or Personnel Manager of the Port Harcourt Branch the Claimant answered and said he was not there. And in which case he did not know if his family contacted the Defendant.
He admitted after being shown parts of exhibit H to H3 that on his first headof claim that the basic substance of his claim was for reinstatement. He also said it was not correct to say he was out of job. He said it was false the he was told by the Area Manager Port-Harcourt that his services were no longer required. He said he could not remember when he was discharged from UCH Ibadan. He also admitted that he spent 2 years being rehabilitated due to his eyes problems and confirmed a consultant Ophthalmologist wrote to confirm that his eyes were normal after examination. He admitted he was claiming for a certain sum of money for Hospital treatment. He was asked: You claim you were duly discharged from the prison upon release?
Ans: Yes. He was asked further.
Q: Would I be right to say that both S.S.S and the prisons that detained you should know about your detention and incarceration.
Ans: Yes.
Q: I should be correct to say that the document of your discharge should be with the prisons
Ans: Yes of course. Asked when he stopped working for the NNPC he answered and said: the day I was arrested. Asked whether he was working for the NNPC now, he answered and said: No, I am not working for the NNPC.
In the cross examination of DW1, he told the Court he was employed by the Defendant on the 1st of August, 2005 that he is from the Discipline and Litigation Section in the Human Resources Department. He said he deals with records. He said it was part of this duty to analyse disciplinary cases, investigate and carry out appropriate sanctions where necessary after recommending to management in line with Defendants policy. He said he took part in the investigation of the Claimant. He said they investigate staff only not those who are non-staff.
He admitted that they also investigate 3rd parties because a lot of people come to the Defendant writing series of complaints. He told the Court that exhibit K was signed by a retired staff of the Defendant whom he knew as General Manager Corporate Secretariat and Legal Department. He told the Court the document was talking about the Claimant with the ID No 2724. He told the Court that NUPENG was an in house Union of the Defendant. He said there was no need for him to interview the Union concerning the Claimant in his investigation.
The witness was shown exhibit “D” a photocopy of a NUPENG letter of 10th August 2006 headed Confirmation of Arrest Detention and Discharge of Mr. B. Okoro ID 2724. He said:
“I don’t know this document” He said he could not authenticate the letter as far as he was concerned. Though he was made to read out the names of the signatories. He said he had not worked with the Claimant before in the same department, but he knew the Claimant’s signature from the series of petitions the Claimant had written to the Defendant that there was no need to know the Claimant that certain policies and procedures of the Defendant did not have to be in public. He was shown exhibit I, a letter dated 26th June 2008 written to the Group Managing Director, of the Defendant, a Demand for Re instatement of the Claimant to the services of the Defendant which contains a pre action notice from the Claimant’s former Lawyer pursuant to section 12 (2) of the NNPC Act. He told the Court there was no evidence the document was received.
Earlier on, in his cross examination, DW1 had identified the signature of one Out Medo from exhibit K when it was shown him. He had also told the Court he only knew Mrs. Adegbite, and Out Medo whom he said were retired. But he did not know Mr. Akugh.
THE WRITTEN ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES
In the Defendant’s written address, a single issue was formulated for determination. This being:
