Download PDF
This is a motion on notice filed by the applicant/judgement creditor on 19th March 2012 pursuant to Order 11 Rule 1 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007, sections 10 and 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and the inherent jurisdiction of the court praying for the following: 1. An order of this Honourable Court for the payment to the claimant/judgement creditor/applicant of her allowance as Acting Registrar for 5 years and her salary for months of May 2008 and April 2009, as computed below: i. Full salary for May 2008 - N82,068.18 ii. Full salary for April 2009 - N82,065.18 iii. Acting allowance as Registrar for five years (only) computed at N79,085.50 per annum pursuant to approval as granted by President of Council in internal memo of September, 10, 2007 excluding the 25,400 already paid to her - N370,027.50 iv. Half salary from 1st May 2009 to March 2012 at the rate of N41,032.59 for 34 months. - N1,395,108.06 Total N1,929,268.92 2. An order foreclosing any further disciplinary hearing and directing the immediate payment to the claimant of her full salary from 1st July 2009. 3. Reinstatement to her previous substantive post. 4. An order allowing the claimant/judgement creditor to enter the defendant’s premises to recover her personal belongings. 5. Payment of interest of 21% per annum on the outstanding amounts due to the plaintiff/judgement creditor from expected date of payment to the date of actual payment. 6. And for such further or other orders as this honourable court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. The motion is supported by a 3-paragraphed affidavit sworn to by David Attah, a law clerk, to which is attached 11 exhibits marked Exhibits D1 to D11. Accompanying the motion is a written address in support dated 15th March 2012. In reaction, the respondent/judgement debtor filed a 23-paragraphed counter-affidavit which was sworn to by Christian Madueke, an Accountant, on 27th March 2012 to which is attached 5 exhibits marked Exhibits A to E. Accompanying to the counter-affidavit is a written address dated 27th March 2012. Parties adopted their written addresses and orally addressed the court. The learned SAN began by stating that the purpose of this application is to give effect to the judgement of the court delivered on the 14th April 2011 and enforce it. He further stated that the orders made in the judgement are as follows: 1. The payment to the claimant of her full salary for May 2008, her full salary for April 2009 and her half salary from May 1 2009 till the disciplinary proceedings are concluded. 2. The payment of acting allowance to the claimant for the period of 5 years during which she acted as Registrar of the Institute. 3. That the disciplinary committee be constituted immediately and proceedings be commenced to determine the culpability or otherwise of the claimant. This should be concluded within 30 days of the date of this judgement. 4. That the contract of service of the claimant is subsisting and unbroken. He informed the court that after about 11 months there has been no compliance with the orders as the respondent/judgement debtor has chosen to withhold payment by generating a needless dispute as to the quantum of the applicant’s salary and acting allowance. He informed the court that no disciplinary proceedings had taken place since the judgement; no action was taken within the 30 days and neither has there been any application for time to be extended. He also informed the court that the respondent/judgement debtor unilaterally sought to pay the judgement award in instalments without an order of court and computed the amount payable much lower than what it should be which was rejected by the applicant/judgement creditor. The learned SAN submitted that the issue to be determined by the court is the quantum of the acting allowance payable to the applicant/judgement creditor and whether the respondent/judgement debtor can embark on any disciplinary proceedings outside the 30 days allowed by the court. He stated that the respondent/judgement debtor computed the acting allowance for 5 years to be N164,295.80 which the applicant/judgement creditor disputes. That she contends that the correct amount is N395,427.50 relying on an internal memo of September 10, 2007 where the computation of her acting allowance was approved by the President of the Council and her substantive status recorded as Assistant Director (step 1). The learned SAN submitted that the respondent judgement/debtor is estopped by the approval of the President reflected in a manuscript endorsement on the letter of September 10, 2007 from resiling the fact that the applicant/judgement creditor was Assistant Director (step 1) as she had over the years relied on that approval in discharging the duties of that office. He submitted that this is an appropriate case to invoke the principle of administrative estoppel relying on the book ADMINISTRATIVE LAW by Wade and Forsyth 8th edition, page 236 and 242. He argued that the respondent/judgement debtor cannot in year 2011 seek to undo what had been agreed in year 2007 and urged the court to order the immediate payment of N395,427.50 as the correct acting allowance due to the applicant/judgement creditor. The learned SAN informed the court that the applicant/judgement creditor was prepared to accept the respondent/judgement debtors computation of her half salary at N82,068.18 to facilitate a resolution of this issue. He stated that the respondent/judgement debtor took no steps to pay the half salary ordered by the court despite repeated demands. He submitted that this disobedience is contemptuous and urged the court to order the immediate payment of her half salary at the rate of N41,034.09 being half of the N82,068.18 monthly salary. The learned SAN prayed the court to foreclose any further disciplinary action against the applicant/judgement creditor as the respondent/judgement debtor failed to obey the order of court that the disciplinary committee be constituted and the proceedings be concluded within 30 days from the date of judgement. He argued that the disciplinary proceedings were announced over two years ago by the respondent/judgement debtor and almost a year after it ought to have been concluded, it has chosen to do nothing but to keep the disciplinary proceedings hanging over her in perpetuity. He submitted that the court has a duty to act not only to protect and preserve the integrity of the court but also to do justice to the applicant. He prayed the court to decree her immediate reinstatement considering that she has not been indicted for any offence and that her full salary from May 2009 be paid to her. The learned SAN submitted that there is the need for the court to preserve the sanctity of its judgements and orders if the foundation of its judgements and orders are not to be eroded. He submitted that a party who obtains an order of court in his or her favour is always at liberty to apply to the court for further orders to preserve the authority of its decisions, referring to Fritz v. Hobson (1880) Ch.D vol xiv page 542 at 543. He urged the court to grant the prayers sought by the applicant in the interest of justice as she has been constrained to bring this application. In opposing this application, learned counsel to the respondent/judgement debtor submitted that a court of law should be interested in the equity of the matter before it, in its broad and generic sense of fairness and fair play. She submitted that the respondent/judgement debtor complied with the order of court in respect of payment of the applicant/judgement creditor’s full salary for May 2008 and April 2009 by issuing cheques based on its computations in line with the mode and manner of previous payments made to her in the same year. She stated that the cheques issued to the applicant/judgement creditor were inclusive of this payment and submitted that the respondent/judgement debtor also complied with the order of court to pay acting allowance which it did by issuing cheques based on its computation of an Assistant Director (step 3). Learned counsel informed the court that the payments were made in instalments by cheques which is not in accordance with the terms of the judgement. She admitted that the respondent/judgement debtor has not paid the half salary ordered to be paid by the court to be paid to the applicant/judgement creditor from May 2009. She urged the court to discountenance the authorities on administrative estoppel cited by the learned SAN on the ground that they are not on all fours with this case. On the issue of convening the disciplinary committee, learned counsel stated that the respondent/judgement debtor took steps to comply with the order of court regarding the disciplinary proceedings but was frustrated by the uncooperative attitude of the applicant/ judgement creditor; and that the disciplinary committee meeting had to be shelved twice at the instance of the applicant/judgement creditor until it was held on the 24th June 2012. She said that the report of the committee was yet to be released as at the time this application was filed. On the applicant’s prayer that she be reinstated to her previous substantive post, learned counsel submitted that the respondent/judgement debtor has the inalienable right and/or discretion to discipline its erring staff if it so wishes until the appropriate panel determines the culpability or otherwise of the allegations levied against such staff. She urged the court to hold that the relationship between the parties is one of master and servant and that the court cannot impose the servant on the master being a contract of personal service. On her prayer to be allowed to the office to retrieve her personal belongings, counsel submitted that the applicant/judgement creditor has not substantiated her claim that she left her personal belongings in the office by credible and admissible evidence and so this claim must fail. She submitted that the applicant/judgement creditor is not entitled to post-judgement interest which can only be claimed as of right and where there is a power conferred by statute, referring to Reuben Ekwunuife v. Wayne (W.A.) Ltd [1989] 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422 and Henkel Chem. Ltd v. A.G. Ferrero & Co [2003] 4 NWLR (Pt. 810) 306. She submitted that in this case, pre-judgement claim for interest is not a term of contract express or implied between the parties in respect of the amount being claimed by the judgement creditor to make such claim as of right. She submitted that no facts were pleaded in the affidavit to show an entitlement to such interest and also no credible evidence was adduced by the applicant/judgement creditor in any statement on oath to justify same, citing ACB Plc v. Ndoma-Egba [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 669) 389 at 407. She submitted that it is the law that pre-judgement interest is not payable where the subject matter is not a loan especially in the absence of express agreement or course of dealing or custom between the parties, referring to Pa Scutto v. Adcentro (Nig) Ltd [1997] 12 SCNJ 1. She finally urged the court to dismiss this application. In considering the merits or otherwise of this application, recourse must be to the judgement of this court delivered on the 14th April 2011where the following declarations and orders were made: 1. The letter of indefinite suspension from duty dated 1st May 2009 written by the defendant to the claimant is in accordance with the provisions of Article 21(iv) of the NIPR staff manual and conditions of service for NIPR Secretariat staff. 2. The contract of service of the claimant with the defendant is subsisting and unbroken until it is lawfully brought to an end by either party in accordance with the claimant’s terms and conditions of service. 3. It is hereby ordered that the disciplinary committee be constituted immediately and proceedings be commenced to determine the culpability or otherwise of the claimant. This should be concluded within 30 days from the date of this judgement. 4. It is hereby ordered that the claimant be paid her full salary for the month of May 2008, her full salary for the month of April 2009 and her half salary from the month of May 2009 till the disciplinary proceeding is concluded. 5. It is hereby ordered that the claimant be paid her acting allowance for 5 years having functioned as Acting Registrar of the defendant Institute for that period. We will begin with the order to constitute the disciplinary committee. The respondent/judgement debtor has deposed to the fact that it wrote a letter to the applicant/judgement creditor and her counsel on the 13th and 14th of May 2011 respectively inviting her to attend the sitting of the disciplinary committee of the Institute. The letters which are exhibited scheduled the meeting for 9am Wednesday 18th May 2011. This date is already outside the 30 days given it in the judgement to commence and conclude the disciplinary proceedings. There was no application to the court for time to be extended. The respondent/judgement debtor further deposed to the fact that the disciplinary committee finally held its meeting on the 24th June 2011 and that it was attended by the applicant/judgement creditor and her counsel but that the report of the committee had not yet been released when this application was filed. This application was filed on the 19th March 2012 which is about nine months after the disciplinary committee met, yet the report of the committee is not out and no decision of the Governing Council has been communicated to her to enable her know her fate. Furthermore, till date the respondent/judgement debtor has failed to pay the half salary which it stated in the letter of suspension would be paid to her. The order of this court in the judgement to pay the half salary has not been obeyed. The applicant is still in the employment of the respondent/judgement debtor. She has not been paid any salary since 1st May 2009 and cannot seek or obtain any other employment elsewhere. This is the state of affairs the respondent/judgement debtor wants maintained in perpetuity. The question is whether the prolonged suspension of the applicant/judgement creditor, since the 1st May 2009 is justified. We believe it is not. An employee cannot be kept under suspension ad-infinitum without the employer commencing and concluding disciplinary proceedings within a reasonable time. It is for this reason that this Court in its judgement on April 14, 2011 gave a time frame for the proceedings to be commenced and concluded as she had been on indefinite suspension for two years without any disciplinary proceedings being initiated. It is not in the interest of justice to allow her to continue to be placed on suspension for any further period particularly after the respondent/judgement debtor has shown by its conduct and actions that the suspension is mala fide and is only being used as a means of punishment; and not for the purposes of investigating or enquiring into her conduct with a view to coming up with its findings and decision. She has not been indicted or found guilty of any wrong doing. Consequently, the indefinite suspension of the applicant/judgement creditor conveyed to her in the letter dated May 1, 2009 and signed by the President & Chairman, Governing Council of the NIPR is hereby set aside as disciplinary proceedings did not commence and was not concluded within the 30 days stipulated in the judgement of this court. There shall be no further disciplinary action against her by the Council and Management of the NIPR. She is reinstated to her previous substantive position with effect from 1st May 2009 immediately and is to be paid the arrears of her full salary and allowances from that date within 14 days from today. She is also to enjoy all the benefits associated with that office and should be granted access to the premises of the NIPR and into her office without any let and hindrance by the Council and Management. Regarding the actual amount due to the applicant/judgement creditor as acting allowance, the Internal Memo from her on this issue to the President of the NIPR dated September 10, 2007 wherein he approved the computation for her acting allowance on the grade of Assistant Director (step 1) as contained in the memo suffices. We agree with the learned SAN that the NIPR is estopped by the approval of its President from resiling this fact. She is to be paid the balance of her acting allowance totalling N370, 027.50, her full salary for May 2008 amounting to N82, 068.18 and April 2009 amounting to N82, 065.18 within 14 days from today. On the whole, it is quite clear from its conduct and attitude that the respondent/judgement debtor, Nigeria Institute of Public Relations (NIPR), its Governing Council and Management have shown an unwillingness to obey the judgement and orders of this court and have displayed a lack of regard and respect for the rule of law. This court shall, when ever the need arises, act appropriately to protect and preserve its integrity, authority and the rule of law. We award cost of N25,000.00 in favour of the applicant/judgement creditor to be paid by the respondent/judgement debtor within 14 days from today. Ruling is entered accordingly. ..…………………………. Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip Presiding Judge ……………….………………. …...………………...……..………… Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae Judge Judge