IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE UYO JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT UYO
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP: HON. JUSTICE M. A. NAMTARI
DATE: 8TH MAY, 2018 SUIT NO: NICN/UY/41/2016
BETWEEN:
- OBOTETTE AKPABOT IDIONG……………CLAIMANT/APPLICANT
AND
AKWA IBOM WATER CO. LTD ………………DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
REPRESENTATION:
UDUAOBONG UMOH FOR THE CLAIMANT/APPLICANT.
IFEANYI IDIKA FOR THE DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT.
RULING/JUDGMENT
The Claimant/Applicant took out a complaint with all the requisite supporting documents against Defendant/Respondent for arrears of salaries, leave grant, re-instatement and declaratory reliefs on 16th December, 2016. In response and accordance with rules of court, the Defendant/Respondent filed a Conditional Appearance, Statement of Defence and other supporting documents on 20th February, 2017. A reply to the Statement of Defence and a Motion on Notice was filed by the Claimant/Applicant (hereinafter called “the Applicant”) on 11th April, 2017.
The Motion on Notice was pursuant to Order 15, Rule 2 (6) and (7) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 (herein referred to as “the Rules”) and praying for the following orders:
- An Order entering judgment in favour of the Claimant in the sum of N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety Three Naira. Sixty Two Kobo) being part of the claim duly admitted by the Defendant in her pleadings.
- And for such or further orders as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances of this case.
The basis for this application is that the Applicant claimed amongst others, the sum of Nl,093,740.81 (One Million, Ninety Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Naira, Eighty One Kobo) only as arrears of salary from December, 2015 to September, 2016 and 2015 arrears of Leave Grant. And that in its Statement of Defence, particularly at paragraphs 9.10, 10 and 14, the Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter called “the Respondent”) admitted owing the Applicant the sum of N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety Six Thousand, Seven Hundred and Ninety Three Naira. Sixty Two Kobo) only as arrears of salary.
The application is supported by a 7 paragraphs affidavit deposed to by the Applicant and a written address settled by Ndifreke Akpan, Esq. while a Counter-Affidavit of 9 paragraphs deposed to by Mr. Iboro Ben, Esq and a Written Address settled by Ifeanyi Idika, Esq was filed in opposition.
With these processes in place, the parties adopted before this Court their respective Written Addresses as their arguments for and against this application on 21st February, 2018.
SUBMISSION OF APPLICANT:
The Applicant formulated a sole issue for determination which is whether from the circumstances of this case, this Honourable Court ought to grant the relief sought in this application?
The Applicant answered in the affirmative and argued that this Court is empowered by the provisions of Order 15 Rule 2 (6) & (7) of the Rules to enter judgment in favour of a Claimant and against a Defendant, where upon being served with the originating process, a Defendant admits all or part of the reliefs claimed in the suit. For ease of reference, he quoted Order 15, Rule 2 (6) and (7) of the Rules:
“(6). Where the Defendant admits part of the claim, the Claimant may by motion on notice request the court to give judgment against the defendant on that sum of money (where the claim is monetary) or part of the claim admitted by the defendant.”
“(7) The Court may thereafter enter judgment for the payment of the part admitted by the Defendant and may order that the action proceeds in respect of the un-admitted or contested part of the claim.”
He submitted that the above provisions of the Rules will narrow down the number of issues to be tried and time to be spent in the determination of this suit and urged the court to grant this application since it will not prejudicial to the Respondent.
SUBMISSION OF RESPONDENT:
In opposing this application, the Respondent, also formulated a sole issue for determination: Whether this Honourable Court can enter judgment in respect of a disputed fact or fact in issue.
The Respondent accepted that it repeatedly pleaded in paragraphs 9.10, 10 and 14 of the Statement of Defence that the sum “N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety-six Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-three Naira, Sixty-two kobo) only is the outstanding salary entitlement of the Claimant upon his dismissal”. But contended that the said paragraphs cannot be read in isolation and noted that the said sum was not admitted simpliciter but as the outstanding salary entitlement of the Claimant upon his dismissal. To the Respondent it means if the admission is taken as established or undisputed between the Claimant and the Defendant, the Claimant will have nothing more to claim in terms of “outstanding salary entitlement upon dismissal”.
It is the further contention of the Respondent that in paragraph 10 of the reply to statement of Defence, the Applicant further join issues on the said admission when he when he pleaded thus: “lt is not true as defendant admission is not accurate”. On this reliance was placed on Order 30 Rule 10 of the rules of this Court thus:
“A party may by the party’s pleadings join issues upon the pleading of the opposing party and such joinder of issues shall operate as a denial of every material allegation of fact in the pleading upon which issue is joined except any fact which the party may be willing to admit.”
It is also submitted that having joined issues, denied and disputed the said admission, what is the outstanding salary entitlement due to the Claimant upon dismissal is now a fact in issue in this case. (Underlining supplied by the respondent). Having become an issue joined in this case, judgment cannot be entered in limine without prove by the evidence of the contending parties and for the court to determine same one way or the other.
Since the purported admission cannot under the circumstance constitute an unequivocal and undisputed admission entitling the Claimant to judgment, the Respondent is of the considered view that the application should be refused.
DECISION OF THE COURT:
From a perusal of the pleadings of the parties and other relevant documents therein, the issue which calls for determination in this application is: Whether the pertinent paragraphs in the Applicant’s pleading can pass for admission to warrant the grant of this application.
Since this application is predicated on admission, it would not be out of place to have a discourse, ambit, briefly on the concept of admission in law, to form the basic framework for its application or otherwise in this case. This is more so as the rule under which this application is brought is silent on what constitute admission.
Section 20 of the Evidence Act, 2011 defines admission as:
“An admission is a statement, oral or documentary, or conduct which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any persons, and in the circumstances, mentioned in this Act.”
In the case of D’Alberto v. Akintilo (2003) 4 S.C.N.J. 340, Niki Tobi, J.S.C. (of blessed memory) gave judicial impetus to the above definition as follows:
“An admission is a statement, oral or written (expressed or implied), which is made by a party or his agent to a civil proceeding and which statement is adverse to his case. It is admissible as evidence against the maker as the truth of the fact asserted in the statement.”
From the above and other judicial authorities the following principles are to be reckoned with in the determination of a binding admission in law. First, admission in order to bind the party admitting, must be clear, unequivocal and total suggesting a clear inference as to a fact in issue or relevant fact unfavourable to party. See Orji v. Dorji Textiles (2009) 12 S.C.N.J. 276. Second, it is settled law that an admission is relevant against the party who made it or his agent. See Federal v. Ministry (2009) 4 S.C.N.J. 189. Third, admission by a person of a fact he knows nothing about is of no evidential value. See Seismograph Service (Nig) Limited v. Eyuafe (1976) 9-10 S.C. 135 and Tsokwa Oil Co. v. Bank of the North (2002) 5 S.C.N.J. 203. Four, admissions are not necessarily conclusive against the maker as each and every admission must be carefully evaluated and considered under particular circumstance under which it was made. See Nwankwo v. Nwankwo (1995) 5 N.W.L.R. 153 at 171, per A. I. Iguh, J.S.C. Five, admission in pleadings can be arrived at after considering the whole pleadings of the parties and not isolated paragraphs. See Titiloye v. Olupo (1991) 7 NWLR (Pt. 205) 519 and Anason Farms Ltd v. NAL Merchant Bank (1994) 3 NWLR (Pt. 331) 241.
It is with the foregoing that I now set to determine the instant application. For the purpose of clarity I will reproduce the relief/claim in question and the pertinent paragraphs in contention. The Applicant’s claim is number 6 and it reads:
“The sum of N1,093,740.81 (One Million, Ninety Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira , Eighty One kobo) as special damages, being claimant’s arrears of salary for the months of December, 2015-September, 2016 and 2015 arrears of Leave Grant.”
The averments in the Statement of Defence in contention as admissions are paragraphs 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 10 and 14:
9.10. “The Defendant states in further answer to paragraph 18 and 40 of the Statement of Facts that the outstanding salaries of the Defendant as at August, 2016 is the sum of N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-two kobo) only as contained in the computation of salary arrears of the Claimant dated 3/8/2016 already pleaded by the Claimant and the said computation dated 3/8/2016 is admitted by the Defendant and same shall be relied upon at the trial. All other computations by the Claimant on his pleadings are denied.”
- “The Defendant denies paragraph 40 of the Statement of facts only to the extent that the Claimant’s outstanding entitlement as contained in the computation of salary arrears of the Claimant dated 3/8/2016 already pleaded by the Claimant which shows the outstanding salary entitlement of the Defendant upon his dismissal in the sum of N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-two kobo) only. The purported computation of the Defendant in the said paragraph is vehemently denied and put to strict proof.”
- “The Defendant denies paragraph 42(i)-(viii) of the Statement of facts and states that the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought except for the payment of the Defendant’s outstanding salary upon dismissal which is the sum of N996,793.62.”
Since I am enjoined to consider the whole pleading and not isolated paragraphs, I wish to hereby quote paragraphs 9.11 and 9.12 of the Statement of Defence, which I find very apposite:
9.11. “That the Claimant neglected the payment of his outstanding salaries aforesaid after his dismissal and opted out for this action to seek bogus claims against the Defendant, over and above his aforesaid salary entitlement.”
9.12. “That Claimant is entitled to the payment of his outstanding salaries of N996,793.62 which the Defendant concedes and is willing to pay to the Claimant.”
Now the question is does these averments above constitute a binding admission of the claim of N1,093,740.81? The Applicant answered this in the affirmative and relied on Order 15, Rule 2 (6) and (7) simpliciter without advancing any argument. The Respondent answered in the negative arguing that purported admissions were not accurate as “N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety-six Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-three Naira, Sixty-two kobo) only is the outstanding salary entitlement of the Claimant upon his dismissal”. However, the position of the law is that where a whole or a part of an ascertained sum is admitted, the issue is concluded as to the amount admitted and gives rise to proper invocation of the provisions the Rules of Court. This is the dictum of Salami, J.C.A. (as he then was) in Pas (Nig) Limited v. N.N.S. Co Limited (1990) 6 NWLR (Pt. 159) 764 at 772. This is also language and tenure of Order 15, Rule 2 (6) & (7) of the rules of this court.
A calm and combined reading of the supplied averments in the Respondent’s pleadings clearly shows that the wordings of the admission as to the outstanding salaries of N996,793.62 are precise, unequivocal and total leaving no room for any other interpretation. Not only that, the admissions are within the knowledge of the Respondent as evidenced from several averments in the pleadings. The admissions are also clearly against the interest of the Respondent. Therefore, seeking refuge under Order 30 rule 10 and the strenuous attempt to provide a different interpretation to the admissions in his written address is of no assistance to the Respondent. It is too late in the day for the Respondent to make a somersault. In the case of Adeye v. Adesanya (2001) 2 S.C.N.J 86-87, a case not dissimilar with the case at hand, E. O. Ogwuegbu, J.S.C. had this to say:
“The defendants cannot now retract their admission of a specific fact pleaded by the plaintiffs. As that fact was admitted by the defendants, no further proof of its truth was required and they are bound by it and the trial court was justified in acting on it. This court will not also countenance any argument of the defendants to the effect that the trial court or the court below did not evaluate the evidence relating to such admitted fact.”
All these goes to show that the admissions are binding and can be acted upon without recourse to any other evidence or proof. This is in accordance with Order 15, Rule 2 (6) and (7) and section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. This proposition of the law is best captured by the lucid dictum of Niki Tobi, J.S.C. in the case of Salawu v. Yusuf (2007) 5 S.C.N.J. 373-374:
“Admission of a party in law is the best evidence, in the sense that the opposing party need not make any effort to prove the admitted facts. A court of law is entitled to give judgment based on admission by a party if the admission is relevant to the facts in issue. See Salmatu v. Biba (1975) N.N.L.R. 179. In civil cases, admission by a party is evidence of the facts asserted against him. Unless explanations are given which satisfy the court that admissions should not be so regarded, due probative weight be given to them as such. See Okai Ayikai (1946 12 W.A.C.A. 3. A party who admitted a fact in his pleading is bound by such admission and he is estopped from denying the fact admitted.”
Since the pertinent averments of the Respondent have satisfied the requirements of a binding admission (both under the rules of court and case law), I am obliged to succumb to the dictates of Order 15, Rule 2 (6) and (7) of the Rules of this Court and enter judgment for the admitted liability. I therefore enter judgment as follows:
- i)The Respondent is directed and ordered to pay to the Applicant the sum of N996,793.62 (Nine Hundred and Ninety-Six Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Sixty-two kobo) only being part of the outstanding salaries due to the Respondent as at August, 2016.
- ii)The Applicant shall proceed to prove his entitlement to the balance of N96,947.19 (Ninety Six Thousand, Nine Hundred and Forty Seven Naira, Nineteen Kobo) only being the un-admitted or contested balance from the sum of N1,093,740.81 (One Million, Ninety Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira , Eighty One kobo) as special damages and arrears of salary and Leave Grant.
Judgment entered accordingly.
………………………………………
HON. JUSTICE M. A. NAMTARI
