Court declares non-payment of Komolafe’s 7 months unpaid salary as wrongful, awards interest
Hon. Justice Ikechi Nweneka of the Lagos Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court has declared Tomez Ltd’s action of withholding its former staff, Mr Babatunde Komolafe earned salaries after five years of cessation of the employment relationship as wrongful.
The Court ordered Tomez Ltd to pay Mr Komolafe his accrued salaries from February 2013 to August 2013 in the sum of N6,759,666.62 [Six Million, Seven Hundred and Fifty-Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty-Six Naira, Sixty-Two Kobo] and shall bear interest at the rate of 10% per annum from October 2013 until it is fully liquidated.
However, Justice Nweneka ordered Mr Komolafe to deliver the Ford Escape SUV held as a lien for his unpaid salaries to Tomez Limited upon receiving the above payment with the sum of N500,000 cost of action.
From facts, the claimant- Mr Babatunde Komolafe had submitted that the firm’s refusal to pay his salaries for 8 months despite his repeated demands led to his involuntary resignation which is tantamount to constructive termination of his employment.
In defense, the defendant- Tomez Ltd urged the court to dismiss the case on the ground that Mr Komolafe’s claim borders on simple contract and was caught up by the Lagos State Limitation Law which provided that such matter should be filed within 6 years.
The learned counsel argued that Tomez Limited is not indebted to Mr. Komolafe, that he (Komolafe) admitted under cross-examination that his claim is for his salaries from February 2013 to August 2013, and payments were made into his account within that period.
Tomez Limited also averred that upon Mr Komolafe’s resignation, he refused to surrender possession of the Ford Escape SUV vehicle and counterclaimed for the sum of N4,800,000 being the value of the vehicle, or an order of the Honourable Court directing Mr. Komolafe to purchase and handover to the firm a new Ford Escape SUV and cost of the action.
In opposition, the learned counsel to the claimant, Carlos O. Mbaka Esq submitted that Mr. Komolafe’s contract is one of a contract of service which is not caught by the Limitation Law of Lagos State, and insisted that time began to run when his client’s employment was constructively terminated.
He argued that the firm has not placed any evidence before the Court to show that Mr Komolafe’s performance did not entitle him to the N5,000,000 performance-based payment; and submitted that the counterclaim for recovery of the value of the Ford Escape SUV it purchased 10 years ago is an afterthought.
According to him, Mr Komolafe’s right of lien was the sole reason for holding the vehicle and not interested in any purchase or gift of the vehicle and will return it as soon as he is paid, urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought.
Delivering judgment after careful evaluation of the submission of both parties, the presiding Judge, Justice Ikechi Nweneka affirmed the court jurisdiction and held that the suit was filed within the period prescribed by the Limitation Law of Lagos State.
The Court further held that Mr Komolafe’s resignation was voluntary, and does not qualify as one of constructive dismissal and his claim for N5m performance pay has not been established to the satisfaction of the Court.
Justice Nweneka held that the salary of an employee is sacred and cannot be withheld without reasonable cause, that the refusal by Tomez Limited to pay Mr Komolafe’s salaries several years after cessation of employment relationship is wrongful, and he is entitled to his salary from February 2013 to August 2013.
The Court refused Tomez Limited’s counterclaim and held that Mr Komolafe did not go away with a new car, and it will be inequitable to require him to buy one especially when the company’s breach of contract impelled his action.
“For this reason, the alternative claim is also refused there is no doubt that the Ford Escape SUV is the property of the Defendant, and there is unchallenged evidence to the effect that the vehicle is still in the possession of the Claimant, and the basis for the order mandating the Claimant to purchase and handover to the Defendant a new Ford Escape SUV does not arise.” Justice Nweneka ruled
