The National Industrial Court in Port Harcourt has ruled that the employment of six workers with the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC) remains valid and ordered the Commission to immediately deploy them to their designated offices and pay their outstanding salaries and other entitlements.
Justice Buhari Sani of the Port Harcourt Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court gave the ruling after finding that the six workers had accepted their appointments, completed the conditions required of them and reported to the Commission for deployment, but were instead asked to return home and wait for deployment letters. The Court also ordered NDDC to pay their salary arrears, allowances, promotions, increments and other entitlements from their respective appointment dates, including salaries and benefits from August 2024 until the date of judgment and their formal deployment.
The six workers are Daddy Clinton Mene, Kingsley Oyintudugowei Koya, Phebe Asanga, Beveline Alafuro Biambo, Florence K. Njoku Bonnie and Testimony Oroma Okeokwo.
Justice Sani also awarded damages to the six workers for the emotional shock, embarrassment and stress they suffered and directed NDDC to comply with the judgment within 30 days.
The workers had told the Court that they complied with all the conditions stated in their appointment letters, including undergoing medical examinations, submitting the required documents and accepting their appointments before reporting to the Human Resources Department for deployment.
According to the claimants, despite meeting the requirements, NDDC directed them to return home and wait for their deployment letters.
They further stated that while some people employed alongside them were later deployed, they were repeatedly asked to wait despite making several visits to the Commission and sending letters of appeal to its Chairman and Managing Director.
The six workers maintained that NDDC neither terminated their appointments nor paid their salaries and other entitlements, prompting them to seek relief from the Court.
In its defence, NDDC denied employing the six workers and said there was no record of their appointments in its employment records.
The Commission argued that it did not advertise vacancies or conduct any recruitment exercise involving the claimants in 2019. It also alleged that the appointment letters presented by the workers were falsified and fabricated.
NDDC further argued that the workers failed to meet conditions required for a valid employment contract, particularly written acceptance of the appointments and assumption of duty.
Counsel for NDDC submitted that where an employment contract is subject to specific conditions, the contract does not become binding until those conditions are fulfilled. He therefore urged the Court to dismiss the case.
However, counsel to the six workers, Dr C.A.J. Chinwo, argued that the appointment letters issued by NDDC constituted valid employment contracts.
He submitted that there was no legal distinction between a letter of appointment and a letter of employment and argued that NDDC was prevented from denying the employment relationship because of its own conduct.
Chinwo further argued that NDDC’s refusal to deploy and pay the workers amounted to unfair labour practice and urged the Court to grant their claims.
In his judgment, Justice Sani held that NDDC issued appointment letters to the six workers and that they accepted the offers through their conduct by undergoing medical examinations, submitting the required documents and reporting for deployment.
The Judge held that NDDC could not deny the employment relationship after issuing the appointment letters, requiring the workers to meet the conditions attached to their appointments and causing them to act based on those representations.
Justice Sani also found that NDDC failed to provide credible evidence to support its claim that the appointment letters were forged.
The Court held that a mere denial by the Commission could not discredit the documentary evidence presented before it.
The Judge further ruled that NDDC could not rely on the workers’ failure to assume duty after the Commission itself had refused to deploy them.
According to Justice Sani, the workers had fulfilled all the conditions within their control, while the Commission’s refusal to deploy them could not be used to invalidate their employment.
“The Defendant’s refusal to deploy the Claimants does not negate the existence of the contract. The employment continues to subsist as it has not been lawfully terminated,” the Court held.
The judgment therefore requires NDDC to recognise the six workers as employees, deploy them to their scheduled offices, pay their outstanding salaries and entitlements and comply with the orders within 30 days.
