The National Industrial Court (NIC), Port Harcourt Division, has held that supply of human labour is not ‘simple contract’.
Trial judge, Justice Nelson Ogbuanya, made the ruling while delivering judgment in suit marked NICN/YEN/444/2016, between Fedison ManPower Supply Ltd v. Niger Blossom Drilling Nig. Ltd.
The defendant’s counsel, C. Uriem had raised issue of jurisdictional objection in his final written address, to the effect that the NIC lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the dispute over payment of the contract sum in a labour supply contract between the claimant and the defendant, which he said is a ‘simple contract’ and not covered by the provisions of Section 254C (1) of the 1999 Constitution and thus, outside the jurisdiction of the NIC.
The objection was, however, over-ruled by Justice Ogbuanya, while delivering judgment and held that the court has jurisdiction, as supply of human labour is not a simple contract, contrary to the submissions of the defendant’s counsel.
From facts, the claimant’s case is that it is a labour supply contractor engaged by the defendant company to supply and operate with its retained manpower, the defendant’s Rig (Niger Blossom) in its drilling area for Pan Ocean Oil Company.
The claimant argued that in fulfilling its obligation as specified in the Labour Supply Agreement they signed, it mobilised the human labour and operated the rig until the contract was terminated by Pan Ocean, adding that at the conclusion of the rig operation, there was left an outstanding debt of N72, 512,015, which was the sum agreed to by the parties after reconciliation of invoices sent in by the claimant.
It also stated that the defendant refused to pay, even after sending demand letter through its solicitors, hence the suit.
The defendant said it has paid because it has issued instructions to its Bankers, First Bank, and also issued some cheques in favour of the claimant, and therefore not owing the claimant as alleged.
The claimant denied receiving any such payment and put the defendant to the strictest proof.
In his final written address after the trial, the claimant’s counsel, Prince H.O Egielemai, pointed out that the defendant only tendered the copies of the cheques and transfer instructions, but did not lead evidence on how the payment instructions were carried out and that the claimant received payment for the sum owed.
The defendant’s counsel submitted that the defendant does not owe the claimant, having paid all outstanding and also raised an objection that industrial court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on dispute over such contract, which he said is a simple contract, and falls outside the jurisdictional scope of the NIC.
Ruling on the jurisdiction of the court, Justice Ogbuanya said: “What the learned defendant’s counsel however, forgot in his tenacious posturing of jurisdictional challenge in this matter, is that this court has been imbued with jurisdiction over any matter arising from, related to or connected with employment, courtesy of the provisions of S.254 C(1) of 1999 Constitution (3rd Alteration ), effective March 4, 2011.
“I dare say that this provision has over time become a one stop-shop for gauging the amplification of the new jurisdictional mandate of this court in its one-subject matter adjudicatory-stock, which is- employment, workplace, labour- related, connected and/or arising matters! It is actually from the backdrop of the phrasal concept of ‘arising from, related to, connected with labour/employment/workplace’ used variously in the provisions of S.254C (1)-(5) of the extant Constitution that this court derives its amplified jurisdiction to entertain other core civil claims bordering on contract and tort, such as tenancy, libel, negligence, policy issues, fundamental human rights, and even criminal jurisdiction. I so hold”
Justice Ogbuanya also held that labour supply contract is not a simple contract.
According to the judge, it is clear and the contract dealt with supply of human labour.
“Is it a ‘simple contract’? Undoubtedly, labour contract deals with human resource/personnel services; the use of human beings as object of a contract, the subject matter of which is human labour. Such special contract is certainly not ‘simple contract’.
“If such contract is still classified as ‘simple contract’ (dealing with chattel, property and merchandise), even after abolition of slave trade, it means that the concept of ‘human dignity in labour’ is still fraught with the awful nuances associated with slave trade. It is for the same reason of preserving human dignity in labour by not treating humans as property/chattel that marriage contract was excised from the general contract group of ‘simple contract’, and same with labour-related contracts.
“In the circumstance, I take a firm view, that the contract in issue herein, is not ‘simple contract’, but labour-related contract. To hold otherwise, would amount to regarding humans as commodities of trade/chattel, which is subject matter of ‘simple contract’, thereby making a mockery of abolition of slave trade, and fundamental human rights provision in the Section 34 of the extant Constitution.
“More so, as International Labour Organization (ILO) Labour Standards frown at labour being regarded as ‘commodity of trade’. See: ILO Forced Labour (Supplementary Measures Recommendation) (R-203) 2014. Put simply, Supply of Human Labour is not ‘simple contract’. I so hold,” he declared.
While reviewing evidence on the substantive claim for recovery of the owed contract sum, which the defendant said it has made payment by instructing its banker and drawing out cheques in favour of the claimant, but which the claimant said it did not receive any payment, the court held that the burden of proof is on the defendant to establish how the payment it said it made actually was received by the claimant in satisfaction of the debt.
In its finding, the court stated that: “On the whole, I find that there is no evidence that the defendant has in deed paid the claimant the said owed sum, which though acknowledged by the defendant and was said to have been paid through instructions in exhibit D3, but which could not be established by credible evidence that such payment instructions were indeed carried out by the defendant’s banker, so as to confirm that the claimant in deed received payment of the owed sums by the defendant.”
Justice Ogbuanya then held that in modern e-payment system, mere issuance of payment instruction does not relieve an obligation to pay owed debt, as the obligation subsists until the owed party receives the sum due as instructed to be paid.
This, he said, should be a corollary to the new technological approach to e-payment system, which is often fraught with manipulative practices, and even outright mischief.
The judge, therefore, granted the claims for the claimant outstanding debt of N72, 512,015, and awarded damages of N2, 000,000, and N300, 000 as cost of the action.
END
Be the first to comment