IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
IN THE JOS JUDICIAL DIVISION
HOLDEN AT JOS
BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE K.I. AMADI
DATED: November 1, 2019
SUIT NO.: NICN/JOS/40/2017
BETWEEN:
MUSA NYOKYA IBRAHIM —– CLAIMANT
AND
ZUMA STEEL WEST AFRICA LIMITED —– DEFENDANT
REPRESENTATION
A.A. Adewole with N.O. Adewale and Eric .E. Duniya for the Claimant
Okechukwu Ajunwa with Kenneth Ayang for the Defendant
JUDGMENT
INTRODUCTION
The Claimant commenced this suit by a general form of complaint dated 5th December 2017 and filed 6th of December, 2017. The Claimant claimed against the defendant the following reliefs:
- A Declaration that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant still subsist.
- An Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the total sum of N65,290.5k only being balance of arrears of half salary owed him by the defendant for nine months from the months of July 2006 to March 2007.
- An Order directing the defendant to pay the claimant the total sum of N1,871,661.00k only being arrears of full salary owed him by the defendant for 10 years 9 months i.e 129 months from April 2007 to date.
- An Order directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N100,000.00 only being money paid to the defendant by the claimant in year 2006 as rent for the staff quarters occupied by the claimant.
- General damages in sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only.
- Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 10% from the date of judgment until final liquidation.
- An Order setting aside the defendant’s internal memo dated 26th January, 2017 and the Notice to Quit dated 3rd August, 2017 and served on the claimant, the same having been issued in breach of the claimant’s contract of employment.
- An Order restraining the defendant from ejecting the claimant from the defendant’s quarters at Zuma Steel Housing Estate, Rayfield, Jos, Plateau state until all his remunerations have been fully paid to him.
- The sum of N600,000.00 (Six Hundred Thousand naira) only being cost of this action.
The defendant filed a Memorandum of Appearance dated and filed 22nd January 2018, the Defendant filed Statement of Defence and an Amended statement of Defence dated and filed 23rd July 2018. The Claimant filed a Reply to defendant’s Statement of Defence dated 22nd March 2018 and filed 23rd March 2018.
By an order of this Honourable court and agreement of counsel on both sides of this case, 11(eleven) of the 14 suits filed by the former employees of Jos Plant Rolling Mill, who were later employed by the defendant upon privatization against the defendant were consolidated leaving three suits because of a peculiar issue or fact of that particular case. The sister suits that were consolidated and judgment given thereof are the following: NICN/JOS/27/2017, NICN/JOS/28/2017, NICN/JOS/29/2017, NICN/JOS/30/2017, NICN/JOS/31/2017, NICN/JOS/32/2017, NICN/JOS/33/2017, NICN/JOS/34/2017, NICN/JOS/35/2017, NICN/JOS/37/2017, NICN/JOS/38/2017. I have to state here that these judgments could not be delivered within the 90 days framework for reason I will state to the Chief Justice of Nigeria in my letter in that regard.
This case is one of the other three cases with one distinguishing issue or fact that was not consolidated with the other sister cases aforesaid. In this case the peculiar or distinguishing fact is the claim by the defendant that the claimant herein was recalled by the defendant sometime in 2012-2013, whereupon the claimant took 2 days leave and absconded and never turned up for work again.
I adopt the entire proceedings in the consolidated sister cases which I hereby apply it to this case. I shall therefore go straight to the determination of that peculiar issue
The claimant under cross examination admitted the fact that he was recalled but he refused and other rejected the offer to resume. He equally admitted securing another job with one Hikima Associates Limited though he claimed that it was a temporary appointment.
The learned counsel for the defendant, submitted that the action of the Claimant in taking up another employment is a clear case of termination of his employment and abandonment of the rights accruing therefrom. That the Claimant cannot after taking another employment even after being recalled and refusing to resume work come back to ask the court to declare his employment as still in subsistence, that this is clearly against all known labour practice and contract of employment standards. Counsel urged the court to resolve the said issue in favour of the Defendant. And Declare the Claimant’s employment as having come to an end and not subsisting.
The learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand argued that the concept of ‘stood off’ is alien to Nigerian labour laws, and that the Claimant remained in the employment of the Defendant, and that in the absence of either terminating his employment or declaring redundancy, the Defendant had a duty to provide work for the Claimant to do, and that his right to earn remuneration from the Defendant is indefeasible. Counsel urged the court to so hold.
COURT’S DECISION
It is not in dispute that the defendant recalled the claimant herein between 2012-2013. It is also not in dispute that the claimant turned down his recall but took up employment with another company. By turning down his recall and taking up employment with another company amounts to termination of the employment relationship with the defendant albeit wrongfully. He ought to pay some months’ salary to the defendant in lieu of notice of termination. However, because of the fact that the claimant was not being paid any salary then by the defendant, I shall not make such order. In any case, the claimant is hereby ordered to deliver up the house and premises of the defendant wherein he is presently occupying on or before the 30th day of November 2019 or start paying rent thereof as a tenant.
Judgment is entered accordingly.
……………………………………………
Hon. Justice K. I. Amadi, Ph.D.
(Judge)
