Witholding an employment letter is an unjust and oppressive labour practice

BD LAW DIGEST WITH CLRN & ALP NG & Co.

KINGSLEY U. IGWE v. MR. ABDULFATAI OGBOMA & ANOR.

NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
(PORT-HARCOURT DIVISION)

(HAMZA, J)

FACTS

Kingsley U. Igwe (Claimant) commenced this action against Mr. Abdulfatai Ogboma and Fatobs Equipment Ltd. (Defendants) on the grounds that his employment was wrongfully terminated by them. According to the Claimant, he was previously employed by the 1st and 2nd Defendants, where he served as the pioneer Operator and mechanic of the excavator, as well as acting as the handyman and general assistant (foot soldier) for the 1st Defendant. The Claimant alleged that despite his sacrifices and selfless contributions to the establishment and growth of the Defendants’ business, he was only paid a monthly stipend while the Defendants continued to pay half the agreed salary amount. The Claimant asserted that the Defendants repeatedly promised to pay the outstanding balance in a lump sum, but they never fulfilled this promise before the alleged termination of the Claimant’s employment. The Claimant further stated that after working continuously for the Defendants for a period of nine years, they refused to pay part of his salaries and allowances.

On the other hand, the Defendants case was that the Claimant was not a pioneer staff member of the 1st Defendant. Rather, he was introduced to the 1st Defendant by his predecessor, Mr. Silas Francis. The Defendants also maintained that no formal written contract was given to the Claimant because he was employed as a casual staff member. The Defendants alleged that the Claimant’s claim that only half the monthly salary and daily allowance was paid, is wrong and baseless, asserting instead that the agreed amounts were fully paid. Furthermore, the Defendants averred that the Claimant was terminated from his position as Operator due to his admission of committing fraud. One of the issues raised for determination was: Whether the Defendants are justified in law to have denied the Claimant of some substantial part of the Claimant’s salaries and emoluments under the contract of employment between the parties?

ARGUMENTS
Learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant was duly employed by the Defendants to render specific services, and that the nature of the employment relationship was clearly evidenced by several documents tendered before the Court. These included the offer of employment letter, the letter of termination, and the letter of release, all of which were signed by the Defendants and admitted as exhibits. Counsel argued that, contrary to the Defendants’ contention, these documents did not at any point describe the Claimant as a casual employee. In fact, no document submitted by the Defendants contained any reference to the Claimant’s status as a casual or temporary worker. Counsel therefore urged the Court to regard the Defendants’ attempt to distance themselves from these documents as an afterthought, lacking credibility.

Furthermore, learned counsel contended that it is trite law that a party cannot approbate and reprobate that is, a party cannot simultaneously accept and reject the same document to suit its narrative. Having signed and issued the employment-related documents, the Defendants cannot now disavow their contents simply because they no longer favour the implications. Counsel also pointed out that the Defendants failed to produce any credible evidence to justify either the non-payment of a substantial portion of the Claimant’s salaries and allowances, or the eventual termination of his employment. There was no evidence of misconduct, criminal offence, or disciplinary proceedings. Most notably, the Defendants did not comply with the procedure for termination as prescribed in their own employee handbook. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the termination was wrongful and that the withholding of the Claimant’s entitlements was unlawful and unjustified.

In response, the Defendants’ counsel argued that the alleged back-dated letter of employment did not originate from the Defendants and is currently the subject of a criminal forgery trial against the Claimant at the Magistrate Court of Rivers State. The counsel maintained that aside from the disputed fact and the allegedly forged letter, the Claimant failed to provide credible evidence supporting claims of unpaid salaries, allowances, or terminal benefits adding that the salaries and allowances paid from the time of employment until termination were consistent. Counsel further asserted that the Claimant was never employed on a monthly salary basis but was only paid a work stipend on days when equipment was in use to provide services to clients.

The learned counsel submitted that the Claimant’s relief cannot be granted, emphasising that where an employment relationship is not governed by statute or contract of employment, breaches of terms by the employer amount only to wrongful acts and do not render the termination null and void. He argued that the employee can only claim damages for breach of contract but cannot seek reinstatement or reversal of termination, as the relationship is one of master and servant. Counsel further argued that it is well established that when a plaintiff’s claim is based on a contract of service and seeks declaratory and injunctive reliefs, the burden lies on the plaintiff to prove entitlement to such reliefs. Learned counsel submitted that declaratory reliefs are not granted even on admission by the defendant, and if the plaintiff fails to establish their claim by their own evidence, the court is not obliged to grant such reliefs.

DECISION OF THE COURT

In resolving this issue, the National Industrial Court held that:

It constitutes an unfair labour practice for an employer to fail or refuse to issue a formal letter of employment to an employee. The Court stated that the law regulating manual labour requires an employer to provide a written statement of the terms and conditions of employment within three months from the commencement of employment, as it serves as vital proof of the employment relationship, sets out the rights and obligations of the parties, and helps to forestall avoidable disputes.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that in circumstances where an employer neglects or refuses to provide the required documentation, the absence of a written contract does not automatically negate the existence of an employment relationship. The Court may, in appropriate cases, infer or imply the existence of such a relationship from the facts and conduct of the parties, particularly where it is shown that one party exercised significant control over another in the provision of services. The Court stressed further that even without a written contract, credible evidence of continuous service, subordination, and remuneration may be sufficient to establish an enforceable employment relationship and entitle the affected worker to reliefs under the law.

Issue resolved in favour of the Appellant.

Chief Paul Madu for the Claimant.
Abdulfatai Aperua for the Defendants.

This summary is fully reported at (2025) 6 CLRN in association with ALP NG & Co.
See www.clrndirect.com ; www.alp.company.