Employee Injury and Compensation in Nigeria: A case review of Babatunde Ajala -v- Rite Pak Company Limited

Employee injury and compensation is a very significant issue in every employer-employee relationship. It is a factor that should be held in high regard especially by employers as they are usually at the receiving end of the stick when employees are injured during the course of their employment. It is also an important and additional knowledge for employees/workers/laborers who suffer any form of injury during the course of their employment to be aware of the protection and remedies provided by the law to remedy such situations.

This article seeks to briefly point out important issues raised in the case of Babatunde Ajala -v- Rite Pak Company Limited. As will be explained in fuller details, Babatunde Ajala (The Claimant/employee) was a worker in Rite Pak Company Limited (The Defendant/employer). An accident occurred on a particular day, which led to three of the Babatunde's fingers being cut off. After treating himself, he resumed working and then sued the Company for the injury, claiming compensation from the company.

BRIEF STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Claimant commenced this action on 26th April, 2010 at the Ogun State High Court. The matter was transferred to the National Industrial Court in 2013.The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Hon Justice B.B. Kanyip was delivered on January 28, 2019. Click the link below to read the full judgment of the Court:

Full Judgment of Babatunde Ajala v Rite Pak Coy Ltd

The matter is based on the following facts:

According to the Claimant:

1. The Claimant was an employee of the Defendant. On the 3rd of March, 2008 while working with 2 other employees of the Defendant on the Defendant’s Injection Moulding Machine, the machine caused permanent injury to his 3 middle fingers. One of the employees who was Claimant’s supervisor negligently and without any iota of care carelessly left the door of the machine that was on semi-auto mode to answer a call on phone without warning the Claimant or the 3rd employee. The door dropped on the Claimant’s hand and damaged the 3 middle fingers.

According to the Defendant:

1. The Claimant lost part of the 3 middle fingers in the accident which occurred in the Defendant’s factory. The Claimant resumed work at the Defendant’s factory after his discharge and continued to work for over 6 months, till August 19, 2008, when he suddenly stopped coming to work. The accident occurred when the supervisor excused himself, leaving the Claimant and the other employee with the machine. The accident was caused by the careless conduct of the Claimant and the other employee. The Machine had always been in proper condition and had in-built safety measures that makes it impossible for an accident to happen without carelessness. The other employee had stated that he accidentally activated the switch button that caused the accident and it was not the supervisor who dropped the door to the machine.

Highlights of the Claimant’s Merits

1. The case is hinged on negligence of the Defendant. The 3 elements of negligence are: a. That a duty of care exists b. That there was a breach of that duty c. There was damage flowing from the breach
2. The act of receiving a call during the procedure of maintenance was an act of negligence which caused the injury and reduced the quality of life of the Claimant.

Highlights of the Defendant’s Merits

1. The Claimant did not plead the particulars of negligence
2. The accident was a result of the carelessness of the Claimant and the other employee as the supervisor was not at the scene when the accident occurred
3. The Claimant cannot prove the damages done to him as he resumed for work for 6 months before he absconded.
4. The Claimant has not made it clear whether it is holding the Defendant vicariously liable for the negligence of the supervisor.

Highlights of the Court’s Judgment

1. A company can be held liable for negligence in 2 ways: a. Liability for negligence under the Common Law b. Liability for negligence under Workmen’s Compensation Act (now Employee’s Compensation Act)
2. By section 12 of the Labour Act, 2004, a Company (Employer) can be held liable in negligence for the injury caused by a Co-employee to another employee of the Company. This Statute overrides the common law principle which absolves the employer of any accident or injury caused by the negligence of its servant in the course of his employment.
3. The Claimant has asserted and proved that the Defendant was negligent as the Defendant itself had admitted that the Supervisor in charge of the maintenance of the machine left his work to pick a call. This in itself was a negligent act.
4. The sole Defendant Witness (DW) was the Managing Director of the Company to whom the call was being made. In the ruling of the Court, this DW was not at the scene of the incident when it occurred and therefore he could not have been a strong witness to support the claim that the Supervisor was not at the scene when the accident occurred. The Court further held that the Supervisor could have been a more appropriate witness for the Defendant.
5. The Claimant’s case has been proven under the Common Law of Negligence.
6. Judgment awarded in favour of the Claimant. Damages of N10,000,000.00 and Litigation costs of N300,000.00 to be paid to the Claimant by Defendant.

COMMENTS ON THE CASE OF BABATUNDE AJALA -v- RITE PAK COMPANY LIMITED vis-a-vis The Employee’s Compensation Act of 2010

In his book, Casebook on Labour Law, Professor Olusegun Yerokun defined workmen’s compensation as a form of insurance providing wage replacement and medical benefits to employees injured in the course of employment in exchange for mandatory relinquishment of the employee’s right to sue his or her employer for tort of negligence.

The most recent Nigerian law regulating employee compensation is the Employee’s Compensation Act of 2010 (The Act). This law has repealed all former laws regulating Employee compensation, including the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1990. The Act is applicable to all employers in the public and private sector with the exception of the armed forces of Nigeria.

Section 7 of the Act also mandates that compensation shall be payable to an employee.   To make a claim for compensation under the Act, the employee in the case of an injury, or the dependent, in the case of a death of the employee, should within 14 days of the accident or from the time the occurrence is discovered should report to the employer and make such report providing all the details required under Section 4 (1) of the Act. The Act then requires the employer to make a further report, within 7 days of receiving the report to the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board.

The Act makes provision for the cases of accidents where compensation shall be payable. Section 7(2) of the Act provides that the employee is entitled to compensation for any accident suffered between the place of work and the employee’s residence, the place where the employee takes meals, or the place where he usually receives remuneration, provided that the employer has a prior notice of such place.

The Act also provides that compensation shall be payable where an injury disables an employee from earning full remuneration at the workplace, from the day after the injury occurred. Section 8 of the Act provides that compensation shall be payable for mental stress suffered by the employee as a result of the nature of the work of the employee. The Act also provides for compensation where any form of occupational disease listed in the First Schedule of the Act, is suffered by the employee as a result of the nature of his work. Other forms of compensation payable include for injury of hearing impairment or suffered for work done outside of place of work on the instruction of the employer.

It is notable that Section 12 of the Act provides that the Act shall apply to all cases of injury that are covered by the Act. An interesting fact under this section is that, the Act does not prohibit the other actions or claim under the Law. Therefore, it can be rightfully assumed that the Act does not preclude actions under the common law of Negligence. Section 13 of the Act also precludes any form of agreement between the employer and employee which absolves the duty of the employer from paying the compensation under the Act. It is also important to note that the Act prohibits and criminalizes any attempt to make the employee contribute to his compensation.

The Act also makes the computation of compensation easier as it provides for the scale of compensation for the forms of injury or death covered by the Act. Apart from the forms of compensation payable under the Act, the Act also requires the payment for the medical care of the employee. This may be covered by the Board or the Board may mandate the employer to cover such costs.

NOTABLE CASES IN WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION

1. Obasuyi & Sons (Sawmill) Ltd. -v- Erumiawho {1992} 12 NWLR 227

In this case, the Respondent brought an application under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, and averred that during the course of his employment he suffered injuries which included three of his fingers being cut off and a fourth finger being permanently damaged. The respondent claimed N67,372 from the appellant as the 50% of his monthly earnings for 54 months and other expenses payable to him under the Workmen’s Compensation Act of 1990. The appellant contended this claim on the ground that the injuries were suffered due to the negligence of the respondent and further raised arguments on whether the appellant is responsible for paying the medical and travel expenses of the respondent.

The Appeal Court dismissed the appeal and ruled that in determining claim under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, the Court has power to summon medical assessors who are independent of the employer. The consequence of this in the instant case was that it rendered of little probative value the medical evidence tendered by the employer’s Doctors. Also, the Court ruled that under Section 17(2) of the previous Act, the Court has exclusive power to determine claims. This is notably different from what is obtainable under the current Employee’s Compensation Act.

2. Chagaury & Anor. -v- Yakubu {2006} 3 NWLR 139

In this case, the respondent a driver to the 2nd appellant. On a particular night, after dropping the cooks of the 1st appellant at home, on his way back, he was attacked by armed robbers and was shot in the face. Upon getting to the house of the 1st appellant, the respondent was rushed to the hospital where he was treated and 5 of 6 bullets lodged in his face was removed. The 6th could not be removed as the Doctor advised that the removal may damage the face of the respondent. The respondent remained employed till April 1997 when he instituted the action.

In its judgment, the Court addressed the issue of civil actions in lieu of bringing claims under the Act. Using Section 25(1) of the Act, the Court held that nothing in the Act prevents proceedings to recover damages being instituted against an employer in a civil suit independent of the Act.

Currently, it is interesting to note that employee compensation in Nigeria possesses a dual identity, one under the Common Law and the second under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 2010.

The possibility of an employee successfully making a claim under the Common Law and another subsequent claim under the Act or vice versa is uncertain. As the Nigerian courts are wont to hold, such use of remedy will likely lead to multiplicity of actions involving the same subject matter and the courts have considered such an abuse of court process. The reference in Section 12 of the Act to this kind of scenario does not clearly differentiate whether the legislature intends the remedy of employee compensation to only be used under the Act in lieu of the remedy under Common Law.  

Overall, the Employee’s Compensation Act has created a refined approach to the compensation of employees who suffer injury during the course of their employment. By the introduction of a regulatory and supervisory Board, claims for compensation will now be directly assessed by the Board instead of approaching Courts as mandated by previous legislation.

These new developments rids the compensation claims of the bottlenecks faced in litigation and speeds up the access to good welfare for the employees. The Act is therefore highly commended as a big step in promoting social security and the welfare system for employees in the Nigerian legal system.

Written by: Jesutooni-Emmanuel Ajiboye

Caution: The writer does not intend, in this article, to provide a legal advice. The author therefore denies any form of liability on actions taken based on the article. Any actions intended on any matter related to this article should be done after proper advice has been obtained.

You can contact the author for comments or enquiries through his mail: [email protected] or on +2348101351412