CASE TITLE: RICHROCK MARITIME SECURITY & LOGISTICS LIMITED V. GAFAR LPELR-81805(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH MAY, 2025
JUSTICES: JOSEPH OLUBUNMI KAYODE OYEWOLE, J.C.A.
PETER CHUDI OBIORAH, J.C.A.
OKON EFRETI ABANG, J.C.A.
DIVISION: ABUJA
PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW
FACTS:
This appeal borders on labour law.
This appeal is against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Abuja Judicial Division delivered on the 15th day of July, 2020 by Hon. Justice O. O. Oyewumi.
By a writ of summons, the Respondent (as Claimant) commenced an action against the Appellant (as Defendant) at the trial Court, seeking the following:
1. An Order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N365,900.00 (Three Hundred and SixtyFive Thousand, Nine Hundred Naira) being the unpaid outstanding salaries the Defendant has failed to pay the Claimant from June 2016 to December, 2016.
2. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N507,300.00 (Five Hundred and Seven Thousand, Three Hundred Naira) being the unpaid outstanding salaries the Defendant has failed to pay the Claimant from December, 2017 to May 2018.
3. An Order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N187,450.00 (Eighty-Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Naira) being the monthly contribution deducted from the Claimant’s salaries from June 2016 to July, 2017.
4. An Order of the Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N184,000.00 (One Hundred and Eighty-Four Thousand Naira) being claims for leave grant, birth grant, death grant and out of pocket expenses.
5. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being general damages suffered by the Claimant as a result of the Defendant’s refusal to pay her indebtedness to the Claimant
6. Cost of this suit.
In response, the Appellant filed a statement of defence and counter-claim dated 15th May 2019, claiming N40.000.00, being unpaid contributions owed by the claimant to the company’s contribution scheme, along with N10,000.00 as interest.
At the trial, the Respondent testified on his own behalf and tendered several documents admitted as Exhibits AA to AA6. The Appellant called two witnesses, who testified and tendered documents admitted as Exhibits R and R. On 15th July, 2020, the trial Court delivered its judgment in favour of the Respondent and granted the Respondent’s claims for unpaid salaries from June 2016 to December 2016 and December 2017 to May 2018, as well as N87,450.00 for unremitted pension contributions. The Respondent was also awarded N184,000.00 for welfare benefits and N255,000.00 as general damages. Additionally, the trial Court ordered the Appellant to pay its 10% counterpart pension contribution into the Respondent’s Retirement Savings Account within 14 days.
Dissatisfied with the judgment, the Appellant filed the instant appeal.
ISSUES:
The Court of Appeal determined the appeal on the following issues:
“1. Whether the trial Court denied the Appellant’s right to fair hearing, when it suo motu raised the issue of counterpart pension contribution and decided that, ‘The Defendant’s 10% counterpart contribution to be paid into the Claimant’s RSA account within 14 days of this judgment’?
2. Whether the trial Court denied the Appellant’s right to fair hearing and descended into the arena of conflict when it invoked presumption of withholding evidence against the Appellant in granting the Respondent’s claims for leave grant, birth grant and death grants?
3. Whether the trial Court did not fall into the error of double compensation when after it had awarded the Respondent’s special damages of arrears of salaries and other specific entitlements, it still proceeded to award general damages in the sum of N255,000.00 as being Respondent’s three months’ salary for the alleged injury?”
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
It was contended by the Appellant’s Counsel that in light of the clear decisions of the Supreme Court on the sanctity of fair hearing, parties to an action must be heard or given an opportunity to be heard before a case can be considered a fair trial. This foundational principle is embodied in audi alteram partem (let the other side be heard), which is one of the two pillars upon which fair hearing rests.
Learned counsel argued that the trial Court denied the Appellant the right to fair hearing when it raised and decided sue motu the issue of counterpart pension contribution, ordering that the Defendant’s 10% counterpart contribution be paid into the Claimant’s RSA account within 14 days of the judgment, without first granting the Appellant an opportunity to be heard on the issue. It was further submitted that neither the Respondent nor the Appellant raised the issue of the 10% counterpart contribution at any point during trial proceedings, as is evident from a careful reading of the records of appeal before this Court. He posited that the Appellant was denied the opportunity to present any rebuttal evidence, amounting to a denial of the right to fair hearing as guaranteed under Chapter IV of the 1999 Constitution.
Counsel contended that it is not the duty of the trial Court to distribute largesse by granting unclaimed reliefs and that a Court cannot grant a relief not pleaded in an action and cited LITERAMED PUBLICATIONS v. AKPENYI (2014) LPELR- 24082(CA); ANTHONY O. IYAMU EDEBIRI v. DOLEYI OSAWE EDEBIRI & ORS (1997) LPELR-1004(SC); EKPENYONG & ORS v. NYONG & ORS (supra) and UNION BEVERAGES LTD v. OWOLABI (1988) 1 NWLR (Pt. 68) 128.
It was argued that the law is trite on the fact that a Court may award less, but never more than what the parties have claimed. He argued further that the trial Court erred in law by ordering the Appellant to pay 10% counterpart pension contribution into the Respondent’s RSA account within 14 days of the judgment, notwithstanding that such relief was not sought by any party to the suit. In further support of this position, reliance was placed on JOINT PROJECT DEVELOPMENT COMPANY & ORS v. ALHAJI LATEEF AKINLADE (2014) LPELR-22559(CA) and EDILCON NIGERIA LIMITED v. UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC (2017) LPELR-42342(SC).
On his part, the learned counsel to the Respondent submitted that having regard to the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties in this case, the trial Court was right in granting most of the Respondent’s claims. It was contended that there was a proper consideration of the pleadings and a thorough evaluation of the evidence before the trial Court. Reference was made to pages 281 to 289 of the record of appeal.
Learned counsel further referred this Court to the case of EFFIONG v. A.LS. & S. LTD (2011) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1243) 266 at 273 paras. D-E and 268, in support of the position that the trial Court rightly reviewed the evidence and exhibits tendered by both parties before arriving at its findings and conclusions.
With respect to the unremitted pension by the Defendant and the 10% counterpart pension contribution, it was submitted that by paragraphs 3 to 13 of the Claimant’s Statement of Facts and as shown on pages 3-4 and page 282 of the record of appeal, the Claimant sought the sum of M87,450.00 being monthly pension contributions deducted from his salary between June 2015 and September 2016. He further submitted that the Defendant, by paragraph 10 of its statement of defence as captured on pages 126 and 282 of the record of appeal, admitted to the deduction of pension from the Claimant’s salary.
Learned counsel submitted that the obligation to remit 10% counterpart pension contribution is imposed by statute, specifically, the Pension Reform Act, 2014 and that the trial Court gave valid reasons for its decision in this regard. He referred to page 282, lines 15-32 of the Record of Appeal.
He contended that although the Claimant did not specifically ask for the 10% counterpart contribution, the trial Court was right when it ordered the Defendant to remit the unremitted 10% pension contribution to the RSA account within 14 days of the delivery of judgment. Learned counsel submitted that such an order was merely consequential and did not infringe on any right to fair hearing and that where a party has not specifically asked for a relief, the trial Court still has the power to grant such relief if it is merely consequential upon the established facts. He placed reliance on GARBA v. UNIVERSITY OF MAIDUGURI (1986) 1 NWLR (Pt. 18) 550 and AKINBOBOLA v. PLISSON FISKO (NIG.) LTD & ORS (1991) NWLR (Pt. 167) 270 at 288.
DECISION/HELD:
The appeal was dismissed.
RATIO:
LABOUR LAW- PENSION: Whether the requirement for 10 percent counterpart pension contribution by an employer is statutory that the Court can suo motu direct the payment of same by consequential order without an employee specifically claiming same
“The complaint of the Appellant under this issue is that the trial Court made an order for it to pay 10% counterpart pension contribution of the Respondent, which the Respondent did not claim as a relief. I have carefully looked at the pleadings and evidence led by the parties. It is abundantly clear that the Respondent made a claim for the sum of N87,450.00 being monthly pension contributions deducted from his salary between June 2015 and September 2016 which the Appellant failed to remit. The Appellant did not deny this claim but rather admitted to the deduction of pension from the Claimant’s salary.
In effect, the Appellant accepted the judgment of the trial Court on the N87.450.00 monthly contribution of the Respondent but is only quarrelling with the aspect of the judgment that compelled her to pay her own 10% counterpart fund towards the retirement savings account of the Respondent as its employee, a payment the Appellant did not say that it ever made for her employee, the Respondent.
I have equally noted that the Respondent did not make a claim for the 10% counterpart pension contribution that should be made by the Appellant as his employer. However, there is no doubt that the relationship between the parties was embedded in employment and the issue of remittances for pension is a matter of statute as provided for under the Pension Reform Act, 2014. In other words, the obligations and responsibilities of the parties on the matter of pension is regulated by the Pension Reform Act, 2014. In coming to the decision on the payment of 10% by the Appellant, the trial Court reasoned as follows:
“It is pertinent to state that the argument of the defendant that the claimant is not entitled to his pension claim until he had attained age 50 years is untenable as the issue here is premised on the fact that it failed to remit the sum deducted from the claimant’s salary as pension to his pension fund account and not whether he is entitled to draw from same or not. It is a legal obligation of every employer of labour to remit certain amount of money from its employee’s salary as Pension into the employee’s Pension Fund Administrator. Pursuant to Sections 4 and 11 (3)(b) of the Pension Reforms Act 2014, an employer of labour is to statutorily remit at least 8% of the employee’s salary as well as to contribute 10% also into an account to be opened by its employee with a Pension Administrator of his choice.”
Continuing, the trial Court stated:
“Obviously, the defendant having failed to remit the deducted sum admitted supra from claimant’s salary into his RSA, they equally did not pay their counterpart statutory contribution of at least 10% of claimant’s salary into his RSA…. Consequent upon which I hold that the claimant is entitled to his pension in the sum of N87,450 (Eighty-Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the monthly contribution deducted from the claimant’s salaries from June 2016 to July, 2017, as well as the defendant’s 10% counterpart contribution to be paid into claimant’s RSA account within 14 days of this judgment. I so hold.”
See pages 282 – 283 of the record of appeal.
In arriving at this conclusion, the trial Court relied on Section 4 of the Pension Reform Act, 2014, which provides as follows:
4(1) The contribution for any employee to which this Act applies shall be made in the following rates relating to his monthly emoluments:
(a) a minimum of ten per cent by the employer; and
(b) a minimum of eight per cent by the employee.
In addition, Section 11(3)(b) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 provides that “The Employer shall- (a) deduct at source the monthly contribution of the employee; and (b) not later than 7 working days from the day the employee is paid his salary, remit an amount comprising the employee’s contribution under paragraph (b) of this subsection and the employer’s contribution to the Pension Fund Custodian specified by the Pension Fund Administrator of the employee. “
The above statutory provisions stipulate the contribution of the parties and so it is clear that the trial Court did not invent the 10% from the moon but simply applied what the law has placed as a duty on the Appellant. Again, the Law gave the Appellant a seven (7) days period from the time the Respondent is paid his salary to remit the contributions of both the Appellant and Respondent to the Pension Fund Administrator. This is an obligation and duty the Appellant admittedly failed to do.
In all the argument of the Appellant’s counsel that the trial Court granted what the Respondent did not claim in the suit, counsel failed to address the issue of flouting of the provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 by the Appellant. The issue of 10% is a matter of law. It is a mandatory contribution the Appellant shall be making for the benefit of the Respondent.
The Appellant who was deducting the contribution of the Respondent from his monthly salary cannot be offended when the trial Court ordered it to pay its own statutory 10% contribution. The Appellant cannot be selective in obedience to the Pension Reform Act, 2014. It is under this Act that the Appellant happily made deductions from the salary of the Respondent but is now unhappy that the trial Court ordered it to make its own contribution as demanded by the same Sections 4 and 11(3)(b) of the Pension Reform Act, 2014.
It is my opinion that the Respondent need not make a specific claim for it before the trial Court will grant a consequential order in respect of the pension fund of the Respondent, which the Appellant did not deny that the Respondent is entitled to. See AWONIYI & ORS v. THE REG. TRUSTEES OF AMORC (NIG) (2000) LPELR-655(SC) at page 33 paras. E-G and OKEKE v. NWIGENE & ANOR (2021) LPELR – 58170 (SC).
It is therefore my view that the trial Court was right to have applied the relevant provisions of the Pension Reform Act, 2014 to make the order of payment of 10% contribution. The result is that this issue is resolved against the Appellant.” Per OBIORAH, J.C.A
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
