The National Industrial Court sitting in Jos has dismissed a suit filed by 45 disengaged employees against Jos Electricity Distribution Company over alleged unpaid employment entitlements valued at ₦16.5 million, ruling that the claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their claims.
Delivering judgment at the Jos Judicial Division, the presiding judge, Justice Ibrahim Galadima, held that Aaron Kuje, Asesema Auta, Sarah Bako, and 42 others failed to strictly prove how the ₦16.5 million claim was calculated or establish convincingly that the company had failed to pay their entitlements. The court consequently dismissed the suit for lack of merit.
The claimants told the court that they were employed by Jos Electricity Distribution Company between 2014 and October 2017, before their appointments were terminated in October 2017.
They argued that the termination breached the terms and conditions of their employment and alleged that the company failed to fully settle their entitlements following their disengagement.
According to the claimants, the unpaid benefits included salary in lieu of notice, the outstanding 30 per cent balance of their September 2017 salaries, salaries for 13 days worked in October 2017, and house rent allowances.
In its defence, however, Jos Electricity Distribution Company admitted that the claimants were its former employees and confirmed that their appointments had been terminated. The company maintained, nonetheless, that all entitlements due to the workers had been paid, subject to statutory deductions.
The company further told the court that although the former employees failed to complete the required clearance procedures, their benefits were still processed and paid. It also denied liability for pension and gratuity payments, arguing that the claimants did not meet the minimum years of service required to qualify for such benefits.
Counsel to the electricity distribution company, Prof. A.S. Shaakaa, argued that the ₦16.5 million claim constituted special damages which, by law, must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Shaakaa submitted that the claimants failed to provide clear particulars showing how the amount was derived. He further told the court that payment schedules and pay slips tendered by the company demonstrated that several payments had already been made to the disengaged workers.
Counsel to Mr. Kuje and the other claimants, however, disputed the company’s assertion that all disengaged employees had been fully paid.
The claimants’ lawyer maintained that bank statements tendered before the court showed that his clients did not receive all their entitlements, relying on the absence of certain expected payments to support the argument.
In his judgment, Justice Galadima held that the burden of proof rested on the claimants to establish both their entitlement and the alleged non-payment on the balance of probabilities.
The judge stated that entitlement alone was insufficient without credible proof that the payments had not been made.
Justice Galadima further held that the ₦16.5 million claim was neither properly pleaded nor strictly proved, as the claimants failed to clearly explain how the amount was calculated or reconcile it with payments already received from the company.
The court also observed that the bank statements presented by the claimants reflected multiple payments made by Jos Electricity Distribution Company, which were not adequately explained during the proceedings.
On the issue of pension remittances, the court held that the claimants failed to provide evidence showing that pension deductions were made but not remitted to any pension fund administrator.
Consequently, the court ruled that the claimants failed to prove their case and dismissed the suit in its entirety for lack of merit.
