By Folabi Kuti SAN

With proven elasticity to address disparate uncodified ‘questions of fact’ constituting unfair labour practices in the world of work, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN/the Court) may appear to legislate each time it pronounces on factual details that arise for adjudication within its constitutional mandate to apply international labour standards. To the point, the year under review saw the Court increasingly stretch its net to reproach the seemingly inexhaustible acts falling below the ‘decency’ threshold in the world of work. In more familiar legal parlance: ‘unfair labour practice(s)’.

The prevalent situation in Mrs. Roseline Efomo Edeoboigbe v Anjous Eweka & Company (Chartered Accountants) & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/BEN/27/2022, judgement delivered on 23rd April 2024; per Hon. Justice A.A Adewemimo) bordered on the unjust treatment of an undocumented employee who; despite serving for 14 years, was unjustifiably deprived of the benefits granted to other staff under the guise that she was a casual worker.

Similarly, in Obembe Kikelomo v First Royal Oil NIG. Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/110/2020, judgement delivered on 3rd October 2024; per Hon. Justice Prof. Elizabeth A Oji) the Court questioned the undocumented employment status of a discharged employee who was never issued a letter of employment for over ten (10) years of being in the defendant’s employment. This was held to be an unfair labour practice.

And in Mr. Amahian Idoni George v Technoglass Industries Ltd (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/213/2021, judgement delivered on 18th September 2024; per Hon. Justice M.N. Esowe), the non-remittance of an employee’s deducted pensions to his RSA account, formed part of the unfair labour practice identified – in addition to providing a ‘false, mischievous and injurious work reference’.

In Professor Aderonke Favour-Betty Thompson v. The Governing Council, Federal University of Technology, Akure. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/AK/01/2024, judgment delivered on 5th July 2024; per Hon. Justice K.D. Damulak), the Court held that purportedly rejecting the claimant’s resignation and attempting to compel her to return to work, after notifying her of the stoppage of her salary due to her resignation, amounted to unfair labour practice, forced labour and hence, unconstitutional.

The defendant’s refusal to honour the terms and conditions of employment in its handbook relating to the discipline of erring staff, was held to amount to unfair labour practice in Mr. Elijah Ejelikwu v Swift Network Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/129/2021, judgement delivered on 18 September 2024; per Hon. Justice M.N. Esowe). And the court in John Mowette v O.K Isokariari & Sons Nigeria Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/164/2022, judgement delivered on 16 July 2024; per Hon. Justice M.A. Hamza) held ‘the failure of the defendant company to accord the claimant with an opportunity to enjoy annual leave for over a period of five years’ to be an unfair labour practice.

In Christian Isioma Okafor v Metro Digital Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/145/2022, judgement delivered on 2nd May 2024; per Hon. Justice P.I. Hamman) the Court declared the defendant company’s action in directing the claimant to proceed on an indefinite unpaid leave as an unfair labour practice.

Fabian Enebechi v Enugu Electricity Distribution Company & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/AWK/17/2020, judgement delivered on 6 November 2024; per Hon. Justice J.I Targema clarified that not being promoted by the employer will not ordinarily translate into an ‘unfair labour practice.

In the financial sector, restricting an erstwhile employee’s entitlements in the defendant bank’s account without reference to an investigation, or any other plausible reason for that matter was declared an unfair labour practice in Mrs. Amaka Adiba Udeh v Ecobank Nigeria Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/159/2022, judgement delivered on 23rd July 2024; per Hon. Justice P.I. Hamman). This practice was similarly declared ‘unlawful’ in Mrs. Christy Ejale v Uda Microfinance Bank Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/BEN/38/2022, judgement delivered on 23rd May 2024; per Hon. Justice A.A Adewemimo) and Mr. Martin Ajomo v Uda Microfinance Bank Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/BEN/43/2021, judgement delivered on 12th July 2024; per Hon. Justice A.A Adewemimo.

Adding helpful discussions on the law and practice related to employee loans and its own related jurisdiction, the Court in Aneke Arinze Leonard v. Ecobank Nigeria Limited (The Pan African Bank) (Unreported Suit No. NICN/EN/49/2019, judgment delivered on 9th January 2024; per Hon. Justice O.O. Arowosegbe) focused on the appropriateness of seizing a claimant’s entire salaries for ten months under the guise of defraying the claimant’s obligations under an employee loan. Upon a keen and thorough analysis of the facts and evidence before it, the Court; in no uncertain terms, denounced this practice as well as the amortization of the claimant’s terminal benefits ‘in the name of the fake employee loan’ as ‘illegal’ and an ‘unfair labour practice’. In its own voice on this issue, the Court stated:

‘…the unfair labour practice is on the employee, as well as the public, who have their monies in the vaults of the banks and the overall national economy for a bank to involve in unwholesome schemes over employee loan granted to her employee, which chicanery and arm-twisting tactics involved stifling the employee’s financial muscles by brutally seizing his entire salaries for 10 months and still leaving the bruised employee to run amok working in the bank…’ .

In addition to a finding of an unfair labour contract, the Court thoughtfully added a passing remark that ‘the unfair labour practice acted by the defendant in seizing the claimant’s full salaries for a whopping ten months, even criminally violated S.3 of the Minimum Wage Act, which says, no worker or employee shall earn less than N30Thousand per month in Nigeria.’

Compensatory damages

Calling in aid the undoubted statutory and constitutional employee protections against unfair labour practices, the Court in the past year seemed to continue along the measured/incremental path in its assessment of the quantum of compensatory damages in proven cases of unfair practices at the workplace. This would appear justifiable in some cases. However, in a few others the Court in making awards, evidently applied the philosophical leaning of deterring similar future conduct by employers regarding unfair contract between them and their employees. In such instances, the case seems to have been made for a high-compensatory regime of award of damages.

For instance, in Aneke Arinze Leonard v. Ecobank Nigeria Limited (The Pan African Bank) (Unreported Suit No. NICN/EN/49/2019, judgment delivered on 9th January 2024; per Hon. Justice O.O. Arowosegbe); the facts of which led the Court to pronounce that:

‘…the travesty of fairness in the instant case ticked all the boxes of violations: harassment, intimidation, bully, coercion, undue influence, unfair termination, seizure of salaries for 10 months, starvation of the claimant and his family, highhandedness, mental and psychological traumas, egregious violation of the claimant’s constitutional right [SS. 6(6)(b), 36(1)&(2)(b) & 254C-(1)(f) of the Constitution] to access the courts to seek redress by the attempted bar against institution of suit, violation of the ILO C95 with regard to maximum deductions from wages/salaries and, considering that, these serial violations went on for 11 years [2008-2019]…’,

and award the sum of fifty million naira(N50,000,000.00) as compensatory damages.

The Court pronounced similarly in Odah Ezekiel & 3 Ors (Suing for themselves and on behalf of disengaged security employees of Total E & P Nig. Ltd) v Total E & P Nigeria Ltd & 5 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/663/2016, judgement delivered on 30 January 2024; per Hon. Justice Prof. Elizabeth A Oji). Here, the 1st defendant’s flagrant failure and refusal to issue contracts of employment to the claimants; thereby advertently keeping them in uncertainty as to their terms and conditions of employment for up to fifteen years, was redressed with an award of the sum of fifty million naira(N50,000,000.00) as exemplary damages against their employer.

An observable pattern emerges. In deserving cases the Court, arguably, endeavoured to benchmark the quantum of compensatory damages against the commensurate number of years’ worth of salaries the successful claimant(s) would have been entitled to; had their employment not been wrongfully discharged.

In Ediki Nwanna Ignatius v. Abuja Electricity Distribution Company Plc. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/225/2017, judgment delivered on 25th September 2024; per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki Osaghae) the Court awarded compensatory damages equivalent of two years’ salary as general damages for breach of the claimant’s right to fair hearing, stigmatization, and wrongful termination. In similar vein, the two years’ salary benchmark was applied in Mrs. Comfort Eje v Kingdom Heritage Model School & 3 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/MKD/89/2018, judgement delivered on 7th June 2024; per Hon. Justice S.H. Danjidda), for the wrongful termination of the claimant by the defendants; said termination found to be in breach of the defendant’s policy handbook and guidelines.

In Peter O. Nwoga v. Ebonyi State Government & 4 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABK/12/2022, judgment delivered on 6th March 2024, per Hon. Justice O.O. Arowosegbe), the court awarded Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) as exemplary damages against the defendants for the inhuman treatment of the claimant (who was tagged a ‘ghost pensioner’), and the unjustifiable withholding of his pension arrears. Two marked statements from the case are, first: a denunciation of the Government’s/regulator’s insistence on the pensioners’ physical presence at verification exercises before their pensions can be processed, thus exposing aged, invalid pensioners who are sometimes carried on stretchers to the venues of the verification exercise to the elements; and secondly, a considerable guidance or call on the Government to employ more modern means of verification. This was trenchantly expressed, albeit obiter thus:

“…states go through video conferencing to verify that these invalid old men [pensioners] are still alive. Can’t the states devise a regime of authentication from government medical doctors in the localities of the invalid pensioners to emboss their Nigerian Medical Association [NMA] seals and registration numbers, attesting that these invalid pensioners are still alive? Why are they senior citizens if they do not enjoy any special privileges like their counterparts in the civilized world?”

Miscellany

Upon a careful analysis of the applicable laws and regulations, the NICN in Alo William Nwachukwu v Head of Civil Service of the Federation (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/321/2023, judgment delivered on 21 May 2024; per Hon.Justice B.B Kanyip, PhD, OFR, PNICN) dismissed the claimant’s action hinged on an unproven claim of discrimination. It further upheld the validity- and of general application- the Federal Government’s Tenure Policy for senior executives in government Ministries, Departments and Agencies; mandating compulsorily retirement upon serving eight years on the post; and with a renewable four-year term for Permanent Secretaries, subject to satisfactory performance.

Declaring the non-release of the claimant’s promotion examination results, and the subsequent denial of his promotion as unjustified, the decision in Mr. Olujimi Oyetomi v. Federal Civil Service Commission & 3 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/301/2019, judgment delivered on 25th September 2024; per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki Osaghae) tracks well with the appellate court’s position in Oko-Jaja v Federal Civil Service Commission & Ors (2022) LPELR-57627 CA. To wit, the non-exhaustion of internal avenues provided for in the Public Service Rules and circulars for redress does not prevent an aggrieved officer from exercising his constitutional right of seeking redress in Court.

Unequivocally, the decision in Hon. Justice O.A Ojo v Osun State Govt. & 3 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/IB/61/2023, judgment delivered on 24th April 2024; per Hon. Justice J.D. Peters) limits the executive and legislative branches of government in the discipline or removal from office of a judicial officer. The central question bordered around the discipline of the judicial officers generally and the Chief Judge of Osun State High Court, in particular. The court returned a significant verdict: the executive or legislative branches of government were not endowed with power to initiate the removal or termination of the appointment of the claimant as the occupier of the office of the Chief Judge.

Taking judicial notice of the months of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, the court in Abia Isong v. Obong Edet I. Udo & Anor. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/CA/01/2022, judgment delivered on 5th March 2024; per Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado) did not avail the defendant the convenient excuse of the ‘lingering effects…’ of the COVID-19 pandemic as a cover for not meeting salary obligations for the months of April to September 2020.

The Court, in John Mowette v O.K Isokariari & Sons Nigeria Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/164/2022, judgement delivered on 16 July 2024; per Hon. Justice M.A. Hamza) similarly refused to excuse the withholding of the claimant’s earned salaries between August 2021 and December 2021 due to the ‘outbreak of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19)’ occasioning a ‘global economic downturn and negative impact on global commercial activities with economics at the brink of a recession’.

Continuing to resist the defence of the impact of COVID-19 on individual contracts of employments, the court in Ilile Armstrong v Stallion Nigeria Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/509/2020 judgment delivered on 14th November, 2024; per Hon. Justice A.N Ubaka) declared wrongful the withdrawal of an offer of appointment on the (defendant’s) contention that the contract was never fully consummated as the claimant had not effectively accepted the offer; which offer was argued to have been frustrated by the COVID 19 pandemic.

The court accepted the claimant’s evidence that he unequivocally accepted the offer and hence pre-employment relations commenced when, amongst other things, he formally communicated the acceptance to a staff of the claimant who was part of the team that interviewed him. The claimant also resigned his former employment; complied with the defendant’s directions to undertake pre-employment medical tests in the defendant’s designated hospital and opened a bank account with the defendant’s designated bank.

Mr. Abubakar Buba Sule v NICON Insurance Ltd (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/194/2021, judgement delivered on 18th January 2024; per Hon. Justice R.B Haastrup) restates the position of the law that a letter of resignation takes effect immediately, making a letter of dismissal subsequently issued by the employer null and of no effect.

Relatedly, albeit maintaining the even keel that resignation is said to be complete upon being tendered, the court in Zachariah Ishaya v Fidelity Bank Plc & 2 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/YL/04/2017; judgment delivered on October 14, 2024; per Hon. Justice J.T Agbadu-Fishim) harped a glancing reference to ‘invalid/involuntary resignation’, that is, when resignation has not been validly done, and the employer can reject such resignation and/or disentitle the exiting employee from claiming gratuity or any other benefit that should have derived from the valid termination or resignation from appointment.

Even as doubt no longer remains that an employer can dismiss on civil grounds for the same set of borderline facts that wear the guile of crime, on the declared state of facts in Mr. Ajanaku Akinyemi v Rufus Giwa Polytechnic, Owo & 3 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/AK/50/2021, judgment delivered on 13th March 2024; per Hon. Justice K.D Damulak the court thoughtfully declared that ‘when an act of which an employee is accused of is criminal in nature it is not for the employer to baptize it as misconduct in order to assume the jurisdiction to try and find the employee guilty’. On the set of facts here, the purported termination was based on an administrative panel’s finding of ‘theft of diesel’ against the claimant. In similar vein, Joseph Nazzal v Coca-Cola Hellenic Bottling Co. S.A & 2 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/163/2021, judgement delivered on 18th December 2024; per Hon. Justice A.N Ubaka) examined in great detail the strict requirement of affording an employee fair hearing in the disciplinary process lest court can invoke provision of Section 19 of the Establishment Act for to award ensuing/appropriate compensatory damages

MTN Nigeria Communications Plc v. Private Telecommunications and Communications Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PTECSSAN). (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/177/2023, judgment delivered on 26th April 2024; per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki Osaghae (Presiding Judge), Hon. Justice R.B. Haastrup, and Hon. Justice O.O. Oyewumi (now, JCA), presented an opportunity for the National Industrial Court to re-affirm both its supervisory and appellate jurisdictions over proceedings at the Industrial Arbitration Panel (IAP).

And similarly the decision in The Food Beverage and Tobacco Senior Staff Association v. International Breweries Plc. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/04/2023, judgment delivered on 19th January, 2024; per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki Osaghae (Presiding Judge), Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe, and Hon. Justice O.O. Oyewumi (now, JCA), re-emphasized the court’s jurisdiction over (inter and intra) trade disputes; as circumscribed to a supervisory, and not original jurisdiction.

The decisions in Mr. Samuel Michael Inwang v. AC Nielsen Nigeria Limited. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/CA/27/2020, judgment delivered on 9thAugust, 2024; per Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado) and Bitmarte C-Bit Industries Limited v Olarinde Olamide Victoria (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/242/2023, judgement delivered on 14 October 2024; per Hon. Justice S.A. Yelwa) restate the position: the letter communicating the disengagement of a staff, and the application of rules and regulations (staff handbook) to specific employments can only emanate from the same corporate entity that engaged the individual employee.

In Anthony Ogar Idagu v. United Bank of Africa Plc & 7 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/CA/20/2019, the judgment of which was delivered by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Calabar Judicial Division, per Hon. Justice Sanusi Kado on 1st August, 2024), the court found a meritorious case of constructive dismissal, even as it conveniently drew a balance of disallowing the claimant; who had misconducted himself in relation to his discharge of duties, from benefitting from proven wrongdoing.

The court did not award any compensatory damages even as it altogether advised the banks against condoning such, in the following terms:

‘Before ending this judgment let me say that the practice now prevalent with banks including the 1st defendant, in case of discipline of employees by merely asking an erring employee to resign his/her appointment instead of imposing appropriate sanction for the misconduct committed is not the best, as such practice is capable of encouraging staff to continue to misconduct themselves since they knew that at the end they would be given soft landing by merely asking them to resign. And they get their financial benefit and move on. The practice is also capable of jeopardizing the trust and confidence of customers of banks. For the sake of ensuring only trustworthy persons are retained as employees of banks, there is an urgent need for banks to revisit, and if possible, amend their staff handbook to do away with the abhorrent provision of giving advice to employee to resign his employment’

On the peculiarly dissimilar facts in Abolarinwa Olufemi Salu v Jubilee-Life Mortgage Bank PLC (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/239/2021, judgement delivered on 18th March 2024; per Hon. Justice A.N Ubaka) the claimant’s constructive dismissal from the defendant bank was held wrongful and an award of six (6) months’ salary as general damages made against the defendant.

In Mr. Kingsley Nwaorgu v First Bank of Nigeria Plc (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/437/2021, judgement delivered on 10 July 2024; per Hon. Justice Prof. Elizabeth A Oji) the claimant’s dismissal from the defendant bank’s employment on account of disobedience of a regulatory directive prohibiting the operation of cryptocurrency accounts by customers in the Nigeria Banking system; leading to a fine of N100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) imposed on the defendant by the Central Bank of Nigeria, was held to be proper.

Engr. Chibuzor Albert Agulana v. Dr. Fabian Okonkwo. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/EN/35/2021, judgment delivered on 17th April 2024; per Hon. Justice O.O. Arowosegbe) is a well-fleshed decision on the vexed issue of the jurisdiction of the court on torts of workplace defamation. The court undertook a well-structured, analytical discussion of the arguments for and against conferring judicial power with respect to the subject matter, before arriving at a supportable position affirming its jurisdiction.

For good measure, in Mr Paul Chike v Kayjay Energy Services Ltd & 2 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/YEN/203/2016, judgment delivered on 2nd February 2024; per Hon. Justice P.I Hamman the court awarded the sum of N10, 000, 000.00 (Ten Million Naira) to the claimant as aggravated and exemplary damages for the libelous words maliciously published against him by the defendants, post-employment. And a claim for damages to redress defamatory statements against the claimant by the defendant in the course of employment was similarly successful in Mr. Afiangbosa Atoe v Lapo Microfinance Bank Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/BEN/43/2021, judgement delivered on 12th July 2024; per Hon. Justice A.A Adewemimo).

In Halogen Security Company Limited v Mr. Nnamdi Meli (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/39/2024 judgment delivered on 16th December 2024; per Hon. Justice A.O Damachi) the court frowned at an unreasonable restraint of trade restriction, as per its timeline. The court held it was unproven that the claimant’s future employment was in the same business and with the same objective as the previous engagement, which would have thereby made them competitors.

The employer in Dangote Oil Refining Company Ltd v Oyinkansola Olayinka Johnson & 2 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/255/2019, judgement delivered on 18 September 2024; per Hon. Justice M.N. Esowe) sought to enforce a training bond. The court found the employer in breach of material terms of said training bond availed to the employee. Similarly, on the peculiar facts pattern in Gpay Instant Solutions Limited v Mrs. Julie Idahosa (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/119/2018, judgement delivered on 25 April 2024; per Hon. Justice F.I. Kola-Olalere FCIArb (UK)) the court refused to hold enforceable various clauses on confidentiality, non-disclosure, non-solicitation and non-recruitment in the defendant’s contract of employment.

The thrust of Mr. Chukwuemeka Onyedika v G-ossy Company Drugs Limited & 2 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/208/2018, judgement delivered on 3rd October 2024; per Hon. Justice Prof. Elizabeth A Oji) centred on Igbo trading apprenticeship custom. A distinguishing feature of such (employment) apprenticeship contracts, allegedly, pertaining to an agreement as to ‘settlement sum’ before and/or at the end of the apprenticeship period was, however, held not proven in the instant case – thus, resulting in an unsuccessful claim.

On the primacy of the facts in Sunny Ogoloma v Memose International Ltd & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/06/2019, judgement delivered on 16 July 2024; per Hon. Justice F.I. Kola – Olalere, FCIArb (UK), the court found a case of a triangular employment relationship with the claimant. The award of exemplary damages was thus against both defendants for the wrongful dismissal of the claimant’s employment.

Dr. Oniyide Ajisafe Akinigbe v. Federal University, Oye-Ekiti. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/AK/58/2018, judgment delivered on 29th October 2024; per Hon. Justice K.D. Damulak) reiterated the strict tenets of fair hearing in the disciplinary process.

For good measure, Mr. Onoriose v Federal Civil Service Commission & Anor (Unreported Suit No. Unreported Suit No. NICN/EN/222/201, judgement delivered on 18th January 2024; per Hon. Justice J.I Targema) resonates with the law that dismissal cannot be issued retrospectively, while stressing the need to comply strictly with the tenets of fair hearing in the disciplinary process.

In Attorney General of Abia State v Abia State Judicial Service (Excluding the Claimant) & 3 Ors (Unreported Suit No. NICN/OW/05/2024, judgement delivered on 26 July 2024; per Hon. Justice N.C.S Ogbuanya) the court undertook a painstaking review of, inter alia, the judicial appointment process within the realm of employment policy. A landmark policy decision, the adroit application of the law in the case was as evident in the determination of the preliminary objections to the suit, as in the substantive issues dealt with. The latter were focused on the NICN’s supervisory jurisdiction as a policy court within the employment law space.

In Adefisoye Stephen Abiodun v Safari Support West Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/347/2023, judgement delivered on 17 September 2024; per Hon. Justice Joyce A.O. Damachi), the court reiterated that though termination for cause can occur during probation, the employer – when challenged in court – is expected to adduce evidence on the plausibility of the reason vis-à-vis the term of the employment contract or the code of conduct binding the parties.

While significant reliefs were returned unproven in these cases, the decisions of the NICN in Ameenat Lawal v. Colenco Consulting Limited. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/365/2023, judgment delivered on 30th September 2024; per Hon. Justice E.D. Subilim); Mr. Paul Udeh v Cadbury Nigeria PLC (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/364/2020, judgement delivered on 3 October 2024; per Hon. Justice Ikechi Gerald Nweneka) and Sulyman Kolawole Bello v Vixen Enterprises Limited & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/305/2021, judgement delivered on 4 October 2024; per Hon. Justice Prof. Elizabeth A Oji) represent the court’s position that termination of an employee without stating any valid or justifiable reason, or any reason at all in breach of ILO Convention No. 158 of 1982 is wrongful, and liable to an award of damages against the erring employer. Harmonising the appellate courts decisions, the decision in Sulyman Bello further clarified that the requirement of contemporaneous payment of payment in lieu of notice/terminal benefits does not ipso facto mean that the payment must be made the same day the letter of termination is issued.

In fairness, albeit not pointedly an issue for resolution in either Nuhu Sani v Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company Plc (Unreported Suit No. NICN/KD/09/2024, judgement delivered on 16 July 2024; per Hon. Justice Bashar A. Alkali) or Mr Adekunle Hameed Adenle v Nigeria Machine Tools Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/OS/10/2021, judgment delivered on 29th November, 2024; per Hon. Justice Hassan M. Yakubu), a feature common to both cases, based on the successful outcome of the relief seeking payment of unremitted pensions to the claimant, is the propriety of paying unremitted pensions arrears over to a successful claimant, rather than the pension funds administrator- an approach that seems to be more consistent with the NICN’s previous decisions and aligned with the intendment of the Pensions Reforms Act.

To be sure, Mr Ofunlana Oladimeji v Pensions Alliance Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/180/2023, judgment delivered on 2nd day of October 2024; per Yelwa J.) marks a revival of interest in the applicable pension contribution withdrawal thresholds pursuant to the Pensions Reform Act; vis-à-vis as per the instant case, individual Programmed Withdrawal Agreement(s) with funds administrators. A nexus can easily be established between the court’s decision here and its previous decision in Maroof Abdul v ARM Pension Managers (PEA) Ltd & Anor Suit No.: NICN/ABJ/218/2018 delivered on 18th May, 2020; per Oyewumi (now JCA); in the need for clarity as to the calculable metrics of life expectancy applicable for computing access to a stated percentage of the funds at various times; per the stipulations/limitation in Section 7(2) of the Act.

The ruling in Michael Heavens v Chan Medi Pharms & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/Jos/25/2021, ruling delivered on 19th November 2024; per Hon. Justice I.S Galadima) on the adoption of previous trial proceedings for use in trial de novo before another coram may be deciding a procedural point, but with broader significance than first appears evident. Beyond the availing shield of the Court’s Establishment Act enabling departure from the strict application of the Evidence Act in the overriding interest of justice, the case highlights the more balanced adoption of the court’s inherent discretionary power – now statutorily endowed – to depart where necessary. In the fact scenario, this was applied to ward off the hardship of securing the presence of far-flung witnesses. Notably, the court afforded latitude to both sides to employ Zoom/virtual technology to cross examine any witness previously called, as necessary. This approach reflects the court’s commitment to the ends of justice while accommodating the realities of modern litigation.

On a decidedly final note, the flux largely introduced by conflicting appellate decisions on a common question of law; to wit; applicability of statutes of limitation (for example, the Public Officers Protection Act) to contracts of service, is further manifested in the NICN’s conflicting decisions on the point, in the year review. Driven by the rules of judicial hierarchy, the court’s adherence has alternated between following the more recent of the conflicting decisions or exercising a wider latitude to choose which to follow.

In one camp, cases such as Arthur I. Onoviran v. Nigeria Upstream Petroleum Regulatory Commission & 4 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/213/2021, judgement delivered on 5th July 2024; per Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe; and Mr. Omubo Morgan Ekine v Attorney General, Rivers State & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/91/2023, judgement delivered on 23 July 2024; per Hon. Justice M.A. Hamza) held that the statute-bar limitation will not apply to contracts of service.

However, in the opposite camp, cases like Mr. Inyeibarima Tolofari v Gab Marine and Oil Service Limited (Unreported Suit No. NICN/PHC/110/2023, the judgement which was delivered by the National Industrial Court of Nigeria per Hon. Justice M.A Hamza on 12 November 2024); Ahmed Nata’ala v. Abubakar Tafawa Balewa University, Bauchi. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/BAU/18/2018, judgment delivered on 14th March 2024; per Hon. Justice Mustapha Tijjani); Olawolu Koya Ayodele v. Federal Ministry of Power and 4 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/261/2019, judgment delivered on 18th July 2024; per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki Osaghae); and Eremasi Damini Ebiwari v. The Attorney-General of the Federation & 2 Ors. (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/305/2022, judgment delivered on 18th July 2024, per Hon. Justice O.A. Obaseki Osaghae) towed a different line. In these latter cases, the court held it would apply.

The question now is, whither the path for the NICN to chart to make certain its position on this common question of law? It is hoped that the Court of Appeal, or an opportunity for a case-stated to the Supreme Court will help resolve this lingering confusion in no distant future.

Folabi Kuti SAN is the Lead Partner in Union Attorneys (Incorporating KutiLegal). folabikuti@kutilegal.com

In this article