Attempt by Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited to recover the sum of N15, 714 million and N4 million, expended in training one of its former staff, Okonkwo Onochie Chinedum, has hit the rock, as the National Industrial Court, Lagos Division struck out a suit filed by the company.
Rather, Justice Maureen Nkechinyereugo Esowe in her judgement ordered Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited to pay the sum of N5, 035 million, to Okonkwo, whose employment contract was arbitrarily terminated, for being breach of contract of employment.
Justice Esowe, made the orders while delivering judgment in a suit marked NICN/LA/257/2019, filed by Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited against Okonkwo Onochie Chinedum and two others
Others listed as second and third defendants in the suit are; Chief Ernest Azunda Amadi and Okonkwo Ifeoma Roseline, who stood for Okonkwo as sureties, in the course of his employment with the company.
In the suit, Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited in it’s processes filed before the court by it’s counsel, T. E. Umeaku, had asked the court for the followings; “a declaration that the first defendant is in breach of his agreement, obligations, covenant, undertaking and bond to the Claimant as contained in the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016.
“A declaration that the second and third defendants are both liable to the Claimant on account of the first defendant’s breach of his agreement, obligations covenant, undertaking and bond to the claimant as contained in the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016 and duly guaranteed by the second and third defendants hereof.
“An order for the payment of the sum of N15, 714 million, by the defendants to the claimant being Training course fee, visa processing fee, FFRO cost, air ticket/travel expenses, accommodation cost, transportation cost, feeding including a consolidated training stipend of $300 per month, and other ancillary cost of logistics incurred by the Claimant in the first defendant’s foreign training.
“The sum of N2 million, being and representing general and exemplary damages for the first defendant’s breach of its agreement and undertaking with the Claimant.
“The sum of N2 million, being special damages for breach of contract, that is the professional fees paid by the claimant to recover the full cost of the first defendant’s foreign training from the defendants as a result of the breach of employment contract by the first defendant. And payment of interest on the above sum to the Claimant at the rate of 21 percent per annum from June 25, 2018 till judgment is delivered hereof and thereafter at 10 percent until total liquidation.
However, the defendants, especially the first defendant, Engineer Okonkwo in his defence and counterclaim, filed through their lawyer, D. C. Udeh, asked the court for the followings reliefs; “a declaration that the Claimant (Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited) is in breach of its contract of employment with him, as well as the terms of the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016.
“N10 million, as special and general damages for breach of the said contract of employment and the Training Bond
Alternatively, the first Engineer Okonkwo asked the court for “a declaration that the contract of employment between the company and bim was inchoate at all times material to this suit.
“A declaration that the company, by its words, actions and or omissions had reneged on its obligations, and or breached the implied terms, to regularize its inchoate employment contract with him, upon his return from the training in India and accordingly is estopped from enforcing or seeking to enforce the Training Bond dated March 6, 2016 against him.
“A declaration that the various acts and omissions of the company to the first defendant, and in particular, but not limited to, its refusal or failure to regularize his employment contract, its deployment to its fertilizer company after his training at Engineers India Limited without a proper contract and defined salary and or terms of employment are oppressive, exploitative, abusive and or constitute unfair labour practices.
“An order of court mandating the firm to refund to him the sum of N35, 000.00 unlawfully and or unjustly deducted from his stipend during the period he was engaged with the Claimant.
“N10 million, as general damages for breach of the implied terms to regularize its inchoate employment contract with the him upon his return from the training in India, unlawful exploitation, underpayment, and abuse of which he had been exposed and subjected as a result of the company to him, is oppressive and unfair work practices as detailed in this case.
During the trial of the suit, Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited through one Douglas Adiele, an Assistant General Manager in the Industrial Relations Department, testified as CW1, adopted his witness depositions on oath and through him seven documents were tendered in evidence, which were marked as Exhibits C1–C7 respectively, he was cross-examined and thereafter the Claimant closed its case.
The witness told the court that the company expended $43,650 using an exchange rate of N360 per $1, making the Naira equivalent stand at N15, 714 million, in training the first defendant and which the first defendant in the training bond undertook to reimburse should he terminate his employment with the claimant before the conclusion of five years from the date of employment.
In the same vain, the first defendant testified as DW1, adopted his written deposition on oath as his evidence, and tendered nine documents, which were admitted and marked as Exhibits D1–D9 respectively, and he was also duly cross-examined.
Delivering judgment in the suit, Justice Esowe, upon a careful consideration and review of the facts, circumstances of the case, the pleadings of the parties, the evidence adduced by the parties, and distiled the following issues for determination “in the light of the evidence before the Court has the Claimant proven its case to entitle it to the reliefs sought?.
“Considering the evidence adduced by the first defendant/counterclaimant, has he discharged the burden of proof to entitle him to judgment?.
The judge however decided all the issues in favour of the first defendant/counterclaimant, while dismissed all the reliefs sought by Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited.
In dismissing the reliefs sought by the company, the judge held that; “on the whole, issue one is resolved in the negative in favour of the defendant. This Court finds and holds that the claimant’s case fails for failure to adduce satisfactory evidence in support of same, consequently, its claims are hereby dismissed. I so hold.”
Thereafter, Justice Esowe granted the reliefs sought by the first defendant/counterclaimant, and held that; “This now brings the Court to consideration of the first defendant’s counterclaim, in Abe v Damawa (2023) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1871) 335, the Supreme Court on the nature of counterclaim held inter alia: “A counterclaim is an independent action that must be proved on the balance of probability. It needs not relate to or be in anyway connected with the Plaintiff’s claim or raised out of the same transaction. It is not even analogous to the Plaintiff’s claim. It need not be an action of the same nature as the original claim. Nigerian adjectival law requires that it be filed separately. The separate and independent nature of a counterclaim is borne out of the fact that it allows the Defendant to maintain an action against the Plaintiff as profitably as in a separate suit. It is a weapon of defence which enables the Defendant to enforce a claim against the Plaintiff as effectually as an independent action. As a matter of law, a counterclaim is a cross action with its separate pleadings, judgments and costs. The fate of a counterclaim being an independent action does not depend upon the outcome of the Plaintiff’s claim. If the Plaintiff’s case is dismissed, stayed or discontinued, the counterclaim may nevertheless be proceeded with…”
“The counterclaimant in the instant suit is therefore expected to call credible, cogent and convincing evidence to buttress its entitlement to the relief sought. Exhibits C2 and D2 are the training bond executed on March 4, 2016 by the first defendant/counterclaimant in favour of the Claimant.
“I am thus satisfied that the counterclaimant has shown that the defendant to the counterclaim breached its duty to pay him his stipends without making lawful deductions and what damage attributable to the conduct of the defendant to the counterclaim. The Court and the Defendant to the counterclaim are not at a loss to the exact amount the counterclaimant is seeking as special damages, that is the sum of N35,000.00 deducted from his stipends over a period of six (6) months, paragraph 29(vi) and exhibit D8 lend credence to this position.
“Besides, the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim did not deny making the deduction and the law remains facts admitted need no further proof. Consequently, this Court finds and hold that the counterclaimant has proved his entitlement to this leg of his relief on the balance of probability, the claim succeeds and the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim is hereby ordered to pay the first defendant the sum of N35, 000.00, unlawfully and unjustly deducted from his salaries forthwith. I so hold.
“The second leg of this Counterclaimant’s relief is for general damages in the sum of N9, 665 million, for breach of the contract of employment and the training bond. This Court has earlier in this judgment noted that the conduct of the claimant to the counterclaim in relation to its work practices and work environment were such that were not in conformity with international best labour practice; they exhibited and promoted exploitative, unfair and unwholesome labour practices.
“Section 17 of the Labour Act places on every employer a duty to provide work for its employees, paragraph 29(ii) of the Counterclaimant’s written deposition buttressed the fact that no office space and work station was provided for at least two weeks for him and other employees. Section 14 of the Labour Act entitles workers to free transport or an allowance in lieu thereof where the worker is required to travel sixteen kilometers or more from his normal place of work to another worksite. There is evidence before the Court that the defendant to the counterclaim had difficulties providing transport to its workers within the refinery site.
“The defendant to the counterclaim as depicted by exhibit D9 required its employees to work overtime on a twelve hour shift for six days, the seventh day which ought to be a rest day as required by Section 13(7) of the Labour Act, the defendant noted it could call upon the employee to work, if need arises, there were no evidence of payment of overtime benefits. The Claimant/Defendant to the counterclaim transferred the Counterclaimant and some of his colleagues to a sister company without their consent and the authorization of a labour officer contrary to Section 10 of the Labour Act. The Defendant to the counterclaim did not provide personal protective gears or equipment for its employees working on the refinery site.
“All these are indicative of unwholesome, exploitative and unfair labour practices which by their nature were capable of and in fact did altered the employment relationship to such a degree that the counterclaimant is entitled to regard the employer’s conduct as a breach of his employment contract. Thus a termination of the employment relationship by the counterclaimant will be regarded just as if his employment had been terminated by the claimant to the counterclaim. It is this damage the counterclaimant is complaining about before the court and seeks to be compensated for……..
“It is clear from the evidence before the Court that the conduct of the claimant to the counterclaim in relation to its employees, the first defendant, inclusive were exploitative, unfair, unwholesome and in certain instances unlawful. The Court cannot be a by-stander or condone such unfair, exploitative labour practice, it will stamp its feet and the gravel of the law to curtail and put an end to such unwholesome labour practices. This Court is satisfied that the counterclaimant had adduced sufficient and convincing evidence that shows the cruelty, outrageous conduct of the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim including its disregard for the law.
“Having placed the counterclaimant’s evidence on an imaginary scale, this court is convinced that it tilts in favour of the grant of the counterclaimant’s relief.
“However, the court is of the view that it would be just and judicious to assess the damages awarded against the claimant to the counterclaim in the sum of N5 million. The claimant to the counterclaim is hereby ordered to pay the first defendant/counterclaimant the sum of N5 million, as damages for breach of its contract of employment. I so find and so hold.
“On the counterclaimant’s alternative reliefs, it is the law that a Claimant can plead the reliefs he seek separately or in the alternative. A claimant who seeks and pleads his reliefs in alternative is in effect asking the Court to grant or award any of the reliefs he proves -N.A.O.C. (Nig) Ltd v Ebila (2016) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1498) 120. Our case laws are replete with authorities that emphasis that reliefs sought in the alternative should not be granted cumulatively, that is, when the Court grants the main reliefs claimed, it should not consider the alternative relief claimed in the suit – Oforishe v N.G.C. Ltd (2018) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35. This Court having considered the Counterclaimant’s main reliefs and granted same in part would not consider the alternative reliefs, as they cannot be granted cumulatively with the main reliefs, they are hereby dismissed. I so find and so hold.
“On the whole, the second issue is resolve in the affirmative in part in favour of the first defendant/counterclaimant, except as would be outlined below all other claims of the first defendant/counterclaimant fails and are hereby dismissed.
“Likewise for purpose of reiteration, the Claimant’s claims fail and are accordingly dismissed. And it is hereby ordered as follows: “the claimant to the counterclaim is ordered to pay the first defendant/counterclaimant the sum of N35,000.00, unlawfully and unjustly deducted from his salaries.
“The Claimant/Defendant to the counterclaim is ordered to pay the first defendant/counterclaimant the sum of N5 million, as damages for breach of its contract of employment.
“No order as to cost, parties to bear their respective costs.”
