The Presiding Judge, Kaduna Judicial Division of the National Industrial Court, Hon. Justice Bashar Alkali has ordered the Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company Plc to pay one of its former staff, Mr Nuhu Sani the sum of N1,850,600,00 being 20 months non-remittance pension claim to his Pension Funds Administrator, Stanbic IBTC Pension Managers, and the Sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being general damages for psychological trauma, emotional imbalance and unnecessary disturbance caused by the Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company Plc within 30 days.

The Court declared that the Kaduna Electricity Distribution Condition of service is binding on all parties and ordered the defendant to pay Mr Nuhu the sum of N427,000 as one month’s salary upon his resignation.

From facts, the Claimant- Mr Nuhu Sani had submitted that he was employed by the Kaduna Electricity Distribution on 26th September 2015 and resigned from his employment on the 13th May 2019 on personal grounds, and he realized that Kaduna Electricity Distribution has not been remitting his pension for 20 months January to December 2017 (12 months); November to December 2018(2 months) and January to June 2016 (6 months) without any justification and all efforts to get his entitlement were to no avail.

In defence, the defendant- Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company Plc urged the Court to dismiss the case for lack of competence and the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the matter on the ground that Mr Nuhu ought to have instituted and commenced the case suit by way of Compliant and Statement of Claim in the line with the well-settled principles of Law.

In respect of the substantive suit, the defendant submitted that the Claimant is no longer an employee of the defendant having tendered his resignation letter and having complied with exit procedure as contained in the condition of service.

The Kaduna Electricity Distribution further submitted that the purported Employment Letter of Mr Nuhu is not legible enough to confirm who is the signatory of the appointment letter that there is reasonable doubt as to whether Mr Nuhu was actually employed by the company and If the issue of employment of Mr Nuhu is in doubt it goes to the root of the case and even the jurisdiction of the Honourable Court to hear and entertain this case.

In opposition, the learned counsel to Mr Nuhu, A. Umar Esq submitted that the facts and circumstances of the respondent case are clear facts devoid of any hostility and that a suit does not become hostile merely because a defendant puts up a defence of hostility and urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought in the interest of justice.

After careful evaluation of the submissions of both parties, the Presiding Judge, Justice Bashar Alhali dismissed the objection filed by the Kaduna Electricity Distribution and held when a suit is commenced by originating summons instead of a writ of summons, the appropriate order to be made by the court is to direct the suit to proceed with the filing of pleadings and further that the law does not envisage that a suit commenced by the Originating Summons must be devoid of dispute.

The Court reasoned that if indeed Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company did not know Mr. Nuhu as its employee, the Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company ought to have denied employing Mr. Sani in Exhibit F but the company admitted Mr Nuhu to be her employee.

Justice Alkali stated that the facts presented by the parties to the Court are not hostile and the suit can be conveniently and judiciously determined by way of originating summons, and affirmed that a clinical review of the exhibits tendered reveals that Mr Nuhu was employed by the Kaduna Electricity Distribution Company.

“The Defendant has admitted in the eye of law that the Defendant did not remit the Claimant’s 20-month pension to the Claimant’s retirement savings account and his salary for June 2019 upon the resignation of the Claimant from the employ of the Defendant, the Claimant has succeeded in proving his case and issue two is therefore resolved in favour of the Claimant. I so hold”. Justice Alkali ruled.