CASE TITLE: HOTEL DE BENTLY LTD V. JACOB LPELR-84022(CA)
JUDGMENT DATE: 17TH APRIL, 2026
JUSTICES: ABBA BELLO MOHAMMED, J.C.A.
DONATUS UWAEZUOKE OKOROWO, J.C.A.
OYEJOJU OYEBIOLA OYEWUMI, J.C.A.
DIVISION: ABUJA
PRACTICE AREA: LABOUR LAW
FACTS:
This appeal borders on labour law.
This appeal is against the decision of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Abuja Division, delivered on the 14th March, 2023, which was in favour of the Respondent.
At the trial Court, the Respondent, who was employed by the Appellant, relied on her letter of employment dated 24th August 2011 and a staff handbook to claim gratuity after being laid off by a letter dated 28th June 2021 on grounds of downsizing. In contrast, the Appellant relied on a later staff handbook duly signed by the Respondent on 25th October 2017, which contained no provision for gratuity. In contrast, the Respondent insisted that the earlier handbook applies and entitles her to gratuity and other benefits, and that her employment was wrongfully terminated without due process after years of dedicated. The Court’s decision was in favour of the Respondent.
Being dissatisfied with that judgment, the Appellant approached the Court of Appeal.
ISSUES:
The Court considered a sole issue, thus:
Whether the lower Court was right in the manner it evaluated the evidence before finding for the Respondent?
COUNSEL SUBMISSIONS:
The Appellant’s Counsel contended that the trial Court failed to properly evaluate the evidence before it, thereby occasioning a miscarriage of justice. Counsel argued that the lower Court wrongly discountenanced the evidence of DW1 on the ground that he testified from institutional memory, whereas the record shows that he was directly involved in the events leading to the dispute and, in any event, his evidence remained admissible and credible in law.
Counsel further contended that the trial Court erred in its treatment of Exhibit C2 by holding that it was unsigned and yet applicable, when in fact the original document on record bore the Respondent’s signature. It was argued that this misconception led the Court into further error when it held that Exhibits C2 and D2 & D8 could be read together, thereby creating an artificial ambiguity which it resolved in favour of the Respondent. The Appellant’s Counsel maintained that upon a proper evaluation of the evidence, Exhibits D2 & D8 constituted a later and binding variation of the conditions of service, which superseded Exhibit C2 and did not provide for gratuity. The Learned Appellant’s Counsel also argued that the lower Court wrongly imposed liability on the Appellant in respect of pension contributions despite clear evidence that the Respondent had not fulfilled the statutory preconditions, particularly the opening and notification of a Retirement Savings Account. It was further contended that the award of N1,200,000 as gratuity was erroneous, as the claim was in the nature of special damages, which was neither specifically pleaded nor strictly proved.
Finally, Counsel submitted that the order directing the Appellant to compute and pay unspecified entitlements was made in the absence of credible evidence establishing such claims. On the whole, the Appellant’s Counsel urged this Court to hold that these errors amount to a perverse evaluation of evidence and to set aside the affected portions of the judgment.
Learned Counsel to the Respondent submitted that the appeal is wholly unmeritorious and constitutes a futile attempt to overturn the sound and well-reasoned judgment of the lower Court. Counsel contended that the Appellant, having expressly conceded the finding that the Respondent’s dismissal was wrongful, cannot validly challenge the consequential reliefs arising therefrom. It was argued that a party cannot approbate and reprobate by accepting favourable portions of a judgment while contesting the unfavourable parts. Counsel further submitted that the evidence of the Appellant’s sole witness (DW1) was rightly accorded minimal probative value by the trial Court, as it was largely hearsay and not based on personal knowledge. The trial Court, having had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witness, properly evaluated his credibility, and such findings ought not to be disturbed on appeal. On the documentary evidence, Counsel argued that Exhibit C2 (the Staff Handbook) was never challenged at trial and remained binding on the parties. The Appellant’s attempt to discredit it on appeal was described as an afterthought. It was further contended that Exhibits C2, D2, and D8 were rightly construed together by the lower Court, in line with settled principles that documents forming part of the same transaction must be read conjunctively. The alleged replacement of Exhibit C2 was not supported by any credible evidence.
It was also submitted that the Appellant is estopped from denying the validity or applicability of Exhibit C2, having admitted it and relied on it at trial. The argument on the lack of signature was dismissed as immaterial, as staff handbooks take effect by usage and incorporation, not necessarily by execution. On the issue of pension, Counsel argued that the statutory duty to remit pension contributions lies squarely on the employer, and the Appellant cannot rely on its own default to defeat the Respondent’s claim. Similarly, the claim for gratuity was submitted to have been specifically pleaded and strictly proved, being a liquidated contractual entitlement derived from Exhibit C2 and supported by unchallenged evidence. With respect to other entitlements, Counsel contended that once the contractual basis was established, the evidential burden shifted to the Appellant, who failed to produce relevant employment records in its custody. The trial Court was therefore right to order computation and payment of such entitlements.
In conclusion, Learned Counsel submitted that the judgment of the lower Court was neither perverse nor erroneous but firmly grounded in evidence and law and urged this Court to dismiss it in its entirety.
DECISION/HELD:
In the final analysis, the appeal was dismissed.
RATIO:
LABOUR LAW- PENSION: Whether an employer has a duty to open a retirement savings account for its employee where the employee fails to open one; duty of an employer to make monthly remittances of pension
On this issue, I will commence by stating that the provisions of Section 11(2) of the Pension Reform Act have been misconstrued by the Appellant. A careful and holistic reading of the statute, particularly when considered alongside Section 11(5), reveals the true intention of the law. Section 11(2) provides thus:
The employee shall notify his employer of the Pension Fund Administrator chosen and the identity of the Retirement Savings Account opened under subsection (1) of this section.”
In the instant case, even if the Respondent failed to comply with Section 11(2), such failure does not avail the Appellant. This is because Section 11(5), provides thus:
Where an employee fails to open such a Retirement Savings Account within a period of six months after assumption of duty, his employer shall, subject to guidelines issued by the Commission, request a Pension Fund Administrator to open a nominal retirement savings account for such employee for the remittance of his pension contributions.
The Act imposes a corresponding obligation on the employer to take necessary steps, including the opening of a nominal Retirement Savings Account for the employee where none has been provided, to ensure the remittance of pension contributions of both the employee and the counterpart contribution of the employer. See Section 9(1)(C) of the Pension Reform Act. In fact, Section 11(6) penalizes any employer who fails to remit the deductions monthly to the employee’s PFA account. It is needful to emphasise here that the right of an employee to his pension is constitutionally guaranteed and no one, not even the Court, can withhold it. Thus, the ultimate responsibility rests on the employer to ensure that the employee’s pension contributions are duly remitted in accordance with the provisions of the law.” Per OYEWUMI, J.C.A.
To read the full judgment or similar judgments, subscribe to Prime or Primsol
