The National Industrial Court of Nigeria sitting in Owerri has awarded N12.67 million against Golden Guinea Breweries Plc for withholding the terminal benefits of a former employee for more than two decades.
Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, in a judgment, ordered the brewery company to pay Mr. Chikezie Uwakwe N672,535.69, being his unpaid end-of-service benefits, as well as N10 million in punitive damages and N1 million as costs of litigation.
The court further ordered that the monetary awards be paid within two months of the company receiving the judgment.
It directed that interest at the rate of 10 per cent per annum would accrue on the judgment sums if the company failed to pay within the stipulated period.
The judgment was delivered in suit NICN/OW/03/2024, filed by Uwakwe against Golden Guinea Breweries Plc.
The claimant had approached the court seeking the recovery of his terminal benefits, which, according to the evidence before the court, had been computed and approved by the company shortly after his retirement in 2002.
Uwakwe also sought N25 million as general, exemplary and aggravated damages for what he described as breach of contract and unfair labour practices arising from the prolonged withholding of his entitlements.
The claimant told the court that he was employed by Golden Guinea Breweries in April 1977 and retired in June 2002 after approximately 25 years of service.
At the time of his retirement, the company allegedly computed his end-of-service benefits at N672,535.69.
However, despite the computation and repeated demands, the company failed to pay the money.
Uwakwe subsequently instructed solicitors to demand payment. His lawyers wrote to the company on May 11, 2021, seeking the release of the outstanding benefits.
In a reply dated June 1, 2021, the company’s solicitors reportedly attributed the delay to operational challenges. The court noted that the reply did not deny the debt owed to the former employee.
The claimant relied on five sets of documents, which were admitted in evidence and marked Exhibits C1 to C5.
They included his offer of appointment dated April 18, 1977; his memorandum of retirement dated June 26, 2002; the company’s computation of his end-of-service benefits dated July 4, 2002; his solicitor’s letter of demand; and the company’s reply.
Uwakwe commenced the action in February 2024, relying on the documents and his testimony to establish both his employment relationship with the defendant and the amount due to him.
Golden Guinea Breweries Plc did not file a formal appearance or any defence process challenging the claimant’s case.
The court, however, recorded that a lawyer, D.U.T. Ikpeoha, announced appearance for the defendant on June 28, 2024, but did not subsequently participate in the trial.
At the proceedings of February 6, 2025, the claimant’s lawyer asked the court to proceed under Order 38 Rule 2(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, which permits the court to take steps to determine a matter where a party fails to participate despite being allowed to do so.
The application was granted, and Uwakwe testified as the sole witness for his case. He adopted his witness statement on oath and tendered the documents supporting his claims.
The matter was later adjourned to allow the defendant to file a defence and cross-examine the claimant in accordance with the rules of the court.
But when the case resumed on February 25, 2025, no defence had been filed. A lawyer, D.O. Nwalor, appeared and announced that he was holding brief for another lawyer, Innocent Nzenwa.
Justice Ogbuanya noted that Nzenwa was not counsel on record for the defendant because no memorandum of appearance had been filed and no process for a change of counsel had been perfected.
The lawyer holding brief declined to cross-examine Uwakwe, telling the court that cross-examination was not included in the instructions given to him.
The claimant’s counsel described the development as a ploy to delay the proceedings and perpetuate injustice against the retired worker. He urged the court to allow the claimant to file his final written address because the defendant had neither filed a defence nor cross-examined the witness.
The court accepted the submission and directed that the trial proceed under Order 38 Rule 2(2) to (4) of the 2017 Rules. The claimant subsequently filed and adopted his final written address.
In the judgment, Justice Ogbuanya rejected any suggestion that the defendant had been denied fair hearing.
The judge said hearing notices had been issued and served on the company, and that the defendant had been given opportunities to appear, file its defence, participate in the proceedings and cross-examine the claimant’s witness.
According to the judge, the defendant could not deliberately remain absent and later rely on fair hearing as a ground to challenge the outcome.
Justice Ogbuanya said fair hearing required that a party be given an opportunity to present its case, but did not require the court to wait indefinitely for a party that refused to use that opportunity.
The judge cited the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ukwuyok v. Ogbulu, where the court held that a court must at some point proceed with the determination of a case rather than remain permanently on hold for an absent party.
Justice Ogbuanya said the defendant had been allowed to participate but chose not to do so. He described the company’s conduct as an attempt to “lay judicial ambush” and later complain about the absence of a fair hearing.
The judge held that the claimant had established his entitlement to the unpaid benefits and had also proved the amount claimed.
Justice Ogbuanya referred to the principle that monetary claims in employment disputes require proof of two essential matters: the claimant’s entitlement to the money and the manner in which the amount was calculated.
The court found that Uwakwe had satisfied both requirements through his pleadings, testimony and documentary evidence.
The computation of the benefits, which was dated July 4, 2002, was particularly significant. The court said the document had been prepared and signed off by the defendant and clearly showed the amount of the claimant’s end-of-service benefits.
Justice Ogbuanya also noted that the claimant’s evidence was not challenged under cross-examination and was not contradicted by any defence evidence.
The court relied on established authorities, including Omoregbe v. Lawani, Egbunike v. ACB Ltd, Dennis Ivienagbor v. Henry Bazuaye and Nzeribe v. Dave Engineering Company Ltd, for the principle that unchallenged evidence may be accepted and acted upon where it is credible and admissible.
The judge consequently entered judgment for Uwakwe in the sum of N672,535.69 as the unpaid end-of-service benefits due to him since his retirement in 2002.
The court also found that the company’s prolonged failure to pay the benefits amounted to unfair labour practice.
Justice Ogbuanya held that the claimant had given evidence of the hardship and distress caused by the withholding of his retirement benefits. The court noted that the company had failed to provide a concrete payment plan even after receiving the solicitor’s demand.
The judge said the conduct was inconsistent with best practices in labour relations and fell within the court’s constitutional jurisdiction under Section 254C(1)(f) of the 1999 Constitution, as amended by the Third Alteration Act.
The court stated that the withholding of an employee’s earned benefits for more than 20 years, without satisfactory explanation or payment, justified an award of punitive damages.
Justice Ogbuanya relied on the Court of Appeal’s decision in Kabo Air v. Mohammed, which stated that exemplary or punitive damages are intended to punish blameworthy conduct and deter its recurrence.
Such damages, the court noted, may be awarded where a defendant’s conduct is sufficiently outrageous and reveals malice, cruelty, insolence or a flagrant disregard of the law.
Although Uwakwe sought N25 million in general, exemplary and aggravated damages, the court awarded N10 million as punitive damages for the unfair labour practice.
The judge also referred to an earlier decision, Leonard Oyinbo v. Guinness Nigeria Plc, in which the court held that an employer who persisted in unfair labour practices risked liability to compensate the affected employee.
In the final orders, the court directed Golden Guinea Breweries Plc to pay Uwakwe:
• N672,535.69 as his unpaid end-of-service benefits.
• N10 million as punitive damages for unfair labour practice.
• N1 million as costs of the litigation.
The total immediate monetary award is N12,672,535.69.
The court ordered that the sums be paid within two months of the company’s receipt of the judgment. It further directed that 10 per cent interest per annum would accrue on the outstanding judgment debt after the two months until full payment.
Justice Ogbuanya described the litigation as needless and avoidable, stating that the dispute could have been resolved if the company had respected its contractual obligations and treated the retired employee with appropriate courtesy.
“Judgment is entered accordingly,” the judge declared.Geographic Reference
In this article