Court rejects request of Dangote to recover N19.7m training expenses from ex-employee

Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited has lost its bid to recover the sum of N19.7 million expended in training one of its ex-employee, Okonkwo Onochie Chinedum.

The National Industrial Court, Lagos Division struck out the suit filed by the company.

Conversely, Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited will pay the sum of N5, 035 million to Okonkwo, whose employment contract was arbitrarily terminated by the company.

Justice Maureen Nkechinyereug Esowe, made the orders while delivering judgement in a suit marked NICN/LA/257/2019, filed by Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited against Okonkwo Onochie Chinedum (1st defendant) and two others

Others listed as second and third defendants in the suit are; Chief Ernest Azunda Amadi and Okonkwo Ifeoma Roseline, who stood as surety for Okonkwo in the course of his employment with the company.

In the suit, Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited (claimant) in its processes filed before the court by its counsel, T. E. Umeaku, had asked the court for the followings reliefs:

“A declaration that the first defendant is in breach of his agreement, obligations, covenant, undertaking and bond to the Claimant as contained in the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016.

“A declaration that the second and third defendants are both liable to the Claimant on account of the first defendant’s breach of his agreement, obligations covenant, undertaking and bond to the claimant as contained in the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016 and duly guaranteed by the second and third defendants hereof.

“An order for the payment of the sum of N15, 714 million by the defendants to the claimant, being Training course fee, visa processing fee, FFRO cost, Air ticket/travel expenses, accommodation cost, transportation cost, feeding including a consolidated training stipend of $300 per month, and other ancillary cost of logistics incurred by the Claimant in the first defendant’s foreign training.

“The sum of N2 million, being and representing general and exemplary damages for the first defendant’s breach of its agreement and undertaking with the Claimant.

“The sum of N2 million, being special damages for breach of contract, the professional fees paid by the claimant to recover the full cost of the first defendant’s foreign training from the defendants as a result of the breach of employment contract by the first defendant. And payment of interest on the above sum to the Claimant at the rate of 21 percent per annum from June 25, 2018 till judgement is delivered hereof and thereafter at 10 percent until total liquidation of the sum being claimed.

In their statement of defence and counter-claim the defendants, particularly first defendant, Engineer Okonkwo filed through their counsel, D. C. Udeh, sought for the following reliefs;

“A declaration that the Claimant (Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited) is in breach of its contract of employment with him, as well as the terms of the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016.

“N10 million, as special and general damages for breach of the said contract of employment and the Training Bond

Alternatively, Engineer Okonkwo prayers are for “A declaration that the contract of employment between the company and him was inchoate at all times material to this suit.

“A declaration that the company, by its words, actions and/or omissions had reneged on its obligations, and/or breached the implied terms, to regularize its inchoate employment contract with him, upon his return from the training in India and accordingly is estopped from enforcing or seeking to enforce the Training Bond dated March 4, 2016 against him.

“A declaration that the various acts and omissions of the company to the first defendant, and in particular, but not limited to, its refusal or failure to regularize his employment contract, its deployment to its fertilizer company after his training at Engineers India Limited without a proper contract and defined salary and/or terms of employment are oppressive, exploitative, abusive and/or constitute unfair labour practices.

“An order of court mandating the firm to refund to him the sum of N35, 000.00 unlawfully and/or unjustly deducted from his stipend during the period he was engaged with the Claimant.

“N10 million, as general damages for breach of the implied terms to regularize its inchoate employment contract with him upon his return from training in India, unlawful exploitation, underpayment, and abuse of which he had been exposed and subjected as a result of the company to him, is oppressive and unfair work practices as detailed in this case.

During the proceedings of the suit, Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited through one Douglas Adiele, an Assistant General Manager in the Industrial Relations Department, testified as CW1, adopted his witness depositions on oath and tendered seven documents in evidence, which were marked as Exhibits C1-C7 respectively, he was cross-examined and thereafter the Claimant closed its case.

In the same vain, the first defendant testified as DW1, adopted his written deposition on oath as his evidence, and tendered nine documents, which were admitted and marked as Exhibits D1–D9 respectively, and he was also duly cross-examined.

Delivering judgement in the suit, Justice Esowe, after a careful consideration and review of the facts, circumstances of the case, pleadings of the parties, evidence adduced by the parties, distilled the following issues for determination;

“In the light of the evidence before the Court has the Claimant proven its case to entitle it to the reliefs sought?.
“Considering the evidence adduced by the first defendant/counterclaimant, has he discharged the burden of proof to entitle him to judgement?.

The judge however decided all the issues in favour of the first defendant, and dismissed all the reliefs sought by Dangote Oil Refinery Company Limited.

In dismissing the reliefs sought by the company, the judge held that; “on the whole, issue one is resolved in the negative in favour of the defendant. This Court finds and holds that the claimant’s case fails for failure to adduce satisfactory evidence in support of same, consequently, its claims are hereby dismissed. I so hold.”

In granting reliefs sought by first defendant/counter-claimant Justice Esowe said; “This now brings the Court to consideration of the first defendant’s counterclaim. The Supreme Court on the nature of counterclaim held inter alia: “A counterclaim is an independent action that must be proved on the balance of probability. It needs not relate to or be in anyway connected with the Plaintiff’s claim or raised out of the same transaction. It is not even analogous to the Plaintiff’s claim. It need not be an action of the same nature as the original claim. Nigerian adjectival law requires that it be filed separately.

“The counterclaimant in the instant suit is therefore expected to call credible, cogent and convincing evidence to buttress its entitlement to the relief sought.

“I am thus satisfied that the counterclaimant has shown that the defendant to the counterclaim breached its duty to pay him his stipends without making lawful deductions.

“Besides, the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim did not deny making the deduction and the law remains facts admitted need no further proof. Consequently, this Court finds and hold that the counterclaimant has proved his entitlement to this leg of his relief on the balance of probability, the claim succeeds and the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim is hereby ordered to pay the first defendant the sum of N35, 000.00, unlawfully and unjustly deducted from his salaries forthwith. I so hold.

“It is clear from the evidence before the Court that the conduct of the claimant to the counterclaim in relation to its employees, the first defendant, inclusive were exploitative, unfair, unwholesome and in certain instances unlawful. The Court cannot be a by-stander or condone such unfair, exploitative labour practice, it will stamp its feet and the gavel of the law to curtail and put an end to such unwholesome labour practices. This Court is satisfied that the counterclaimant had adduced sufficient and convincing evidence that shows the cruelty, outrageous conduct of the claimant/defendant to the counterclaim including its disregard for the law.

“On the whole, the second issue is resolve in the affirmative in part in favour of the first defendant/counterclaimant,
“Likewise for purpose of reiteration, the Claimant’s claims fail and are accordingly dismissed.

“And it is hereby ordered as follows: “the claimant to the counterclaim is ordered to pay the first defendant/counterclaimant the sum of N35,000.00, unlawfully and unjustly deducted from his salaries.
“The claimant/defendant to the counterclaim is ordered to pay the first defendant/counterclaimant the sum of N5 million, as damages for breach of its contract of employment. No order as to cost, parties to bear their respective costs.”