Position of the Law on the Consideration of Alternative Claim(s)

CASE TITLE: UBN PLC v. ABIMBOLA & ORS (2023) LPELR-60341(CA)

JUDGMENT DATE: 10TH MAY, 2023

PRACTICE AREA: CIVIL PROCEDURE

LEAD JUDGMENT: MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM SIRAJO, J.C.A.

SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT:

INTRODUCTION:

This appeal borders on civil procedure.

FACTS:

This is an appeal against the judgment of the National Industrial Court, Lagos Judicial Division.

The 1st-122nd Respondents, who were former employees of the Appellant, exited the Appellant’s employment at various times between 2007 and 2012. It is their case that at the time they joined the Appellant’s employment, employee pension benefits were governed by the Appellant’s Pension Trust Deed (otherwise referred to as the Defined Benefits Pension Scheme/Legacy Pension/In-House Pension Scheme).

The 1st-122nd Respondents alleged that upon their respective exits from the Appellant’s employment, they started receiving their pensions under the said Defined Benefits Scheme, until sometime in 2013 when the Appellant unilaterally stopped paying them under the Defined Benefits Scheme and migrated them to the Contributory Pension Scheme, provided under the Pension Reform Act, 2004. Consequently, they commenced an action at the trial Court and asked the Court to compel the Appellant to restore them to the Defined Benefits Pension Scheme.

The Appellant’s position, on the other hand, was that following the commencement of the Pension Reform Act, the Appellant commenced the Contributory Pension Scheme and made the requisite deductions and contributions as mandated under the Act. The said deductions and contributions were commenced in January 2006 and continued till the respective exit dates of the Respondents. The Appellant further averred that the said deductions and contributions were made on account of all the Respondents from January 2006, as none of the Respondents was exempted from the Contributory Pension Scheme under the Act. It is the further case of the Appellant that despite having commenced the Contributory Pension Scheme for all the Respondents since January 2006 (which was to the knowledge of the Respondents), the Appellant erroneously continued to pay the 1st-122nd Respondents under the Defined Benefits Scheme upon their respective exits.

This continued until January 2013, when the error was discovered, to wit: that the 1st-122nd Respondents had actually been placed under the Contributory Pension Scheme since 2006 and had taken benefits of the several deductions and contributions made in their favour under the said Contributory Pension Scheme, whilst also simultaneously taking benefit of the Defined Benefits Scheme. Consequently, the Appellant put an end to further payments under the Defined Benefits Scheme and advised the Respondents to approach their respective Pension Fund Administrators, to whom the deductions and contributions were remitted, for the payment of their pensions under the Contributory Pension Scheme, to which they rightfully belong.

The Court delivered its judgment on 10/09/2020 wherein reliefs (A), (B) and (C) were granted while relief (D) was refused. The Court also granted the Respondents’ alternative reliefs in full. Dissatisfied with the decision, the appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal.

ISSUES:

The Court of Appeal determined the appeal by adopting the issues formulated by the appellant which are:

1. Having regard to the finding of the lower Court that the testimony of the Respondent’s sole witness is unreliable, whether the lower Court was right to have given judgment in favour of the Respondent in the absence of any other evidence?

2. Having regard to the findings of the lower Court that [1] the Respondents are not exempted from the mandatory Contributory Scheme under the Pension Reform Act and [2] that to restore the Respondents to the Defined Benefits Scheme would amount to an illegality, whether the lower Court was right when it proceeded to grant Relief (i) of the Respondents’ prayers?

3. Whether, having granted the main reliefs sought by the Respondents, the lower Court was right when it proceeded to also grant all the alternative reliefs in addition to the main reliefs?

4. Whether the judgment of the lower Court did not occasion a miscarriage of justice when it failed and neglected to consider one of the issues submitted before the lower Court, which issue was material to the dispute before the Court?

5. Having regard to the totality of the evidence before the lower Court, whether there was any factual basis for the award of judgment in favour of the Respondents?

DECISION/HELD:

In conclusion, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal.

RATIOS:

• ACTION – ALTERNATIVE CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S): Meaning of an alternative claim and when same can be awarded
• ACTION – ALTERNATIVE CLAIM(S)/RELIEF(S): Whether where the main claim of a party succeeds, there will be a need by the court to consider any alternative claim
• COURT – DUTY OF COURT: Duty of Court to consider/pronounce on all issues raised before it; effect of failure thereof
• EVIDENCE – DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: Duty of a party to relate documents pleaded and tendered by him to his case
• EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: Effect of contradiction in the evidence.
• EVIDENCE – CONTRADICTION IN EVIDENCE: When will a piece of evidence contradict another; nature of contradiction in evidence that will vitiate proceedings

Download the free ebook, Top 5 AI tools Transforming the way Lawyers Work here: