Court Dismisses Alleged Malicious Prosecution Claim Against Construction Firm

The Presiding Judge, Yenagoa Judicial division of the National
Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Bashar Alkali has
dismissed the case of alleged malicious prosecution and
reinstatement claims filed by one Bernard Benemone against Setraco
Ltd for lack of proof.

The court held that it is not enough to make allegations of
malicious prosecution without proving same, that the firm having
laid a formal complaint to the Police based on the incident which
occurred on the 31st May 2012 as a result of theft within its
premises has no coloration of malice.

From facts, the claimant-Bernard Benemone had submitted that he
was employed as a Security Personnel of the firm and averred that
he was arrested in 2012 with four other persons for an alleged case
of conspiracy that at the quest of the CSO of the firm, they were
charged, discharged and acquitted on the 10th day of October
2013.

He averted that after the court case, the firm agreed to
reabsorb him and the four colleagues but started foot-dragging when
he demanded his entitlement while the case lasted. He sought for
reinstatement and the sum of Seventy Two Million, Nine Hundred and
Fifty-Seven Thousand, Thirty-Two Naira only as specific damages for
malicious prosecution amongst others.

Under cross-examination, he stated that he started working with
the firm on 4th August 2010 but cannot remember his staff number
that his staff I.D was destroyed when his house was flooded, that
he was not paid the same amount every month, and the firm used to
pay them through table payment but started paying them their
salaries through bank after the incident.

In defense, the defendant- Setraco Ltd submitted that Bernard as
a casual employee was not given an Employment Letter, Condition of
Service, or Identity Card of the Company neither does he have a
Staff Number and is not entitled to any form of allowance or any
form of financial benefit.

The Learned counsel to the firm, I. Onyeanwu Esq with C.C. Dim
Esq submitted that the bernard was not able to establish by any
iota of evidence that the firm maliciously prosecuted him and did
not state before the court in any way where the firm insisted on
his prosecution against any finding by the Police that he was
innocent or not on night duty.

Learned counsel contended that it is clear from the evidence
above that the Claimant was not a regular staff and that was why he
had no basic and regular salary as his wages depend on the number
of days he worked in a month and more so as all the months do not
have an equal number of days, urged the court to dismiss the
case.

In opposition, Learned counsel to Bernard, Collins Akebofa Esq
argued that the firm did not deny being in possession of
counterpart copies of his client employment documents but failed to
bring them before the court despite the notice to produce same,
urged the court to hold that the Claimant has led sufficient
evidence to dislodge any suggestion, insinuation or assumption that
he is a casual staff and to grant all the reliefs as can be seen
from his statement of claim.

Delivering the judgment after careful evaluation of the
submission of both parties, the presiding judge, Justice Bashar
Alkali held that Bernard Benemone was not able to establish any
case of malicious prosecution against the firm, that the fact that
Bernard’s was discharged for the offense charged cannot set the law
in motion against the firm.

Furthermore, on the claim for 52 million naira specific damages,
the court held that the claims fall under the terms of the contract
and the claimant has failed to plead the terms of the contract
which he has with the defendant and also failed to tender any
document to aid the court to arrive at a just decision as the court
cannot speculate on the terms of the contract between the
parties.

On the claim for entitlement, Justice Alkali says thus:

“looking at the claims of the Claimant there is nowhere in the
claims where the Claimant prays for the payment of these
entitlements. And this court is not a father Christmas to give a
Claimant relief not sought. Therefore that aspect of the case of
the Claimant is hereby discountenanced.”

The Presiding Judge, Yenagoa Judicial division of the National
Industrial Court, His Lordship, Hon. Justice Bashar Alkali has
dismissed the case of alleged malicious prosecution and
reinstatement claims filed by one Bernard Benemone against Setraco
Ltd for lack of proof.

The court held that it is not enough to make allegations of
malicious prosecution without proving same, that the firm having
laid a formal complaint to the Police based on the incident which
occurred on the 31st May 2012 as a result of theft within its
premises has no coloration of malice.

From facts, the claimant-Bernard Benemone had submitted that he
was employed as a Security Personnel of the firm and averred that
he was arrested in 2012 with four other persons for an alleged case
of conspiracy that at the quest of the CSO of the firm, they were
charged, discharged and acquitted on the 10th day of October
2013.

He averted that after the court case, the firm agreed to
reabsorb him and the four colleagues but started foot-dragging when
he demanded his entitlement while the case lasted. He sought for
reinstatement and the sum of Seventy Two Million, Nine Hundred and
Fifty-Seven Thousand, Thirty-Two Naira only as specific damages for
malicious prosecution amongst others.

Under cross-examination, he stated that he started working with
the firm on 4th August 2010 but cannot remember his staff number
that his staff I.D was destroyed when his house was flooded, that
he was not paid the same amount every month, and the firm used to
pay them through table payment but started paying them their
salaries through bank after the incident.

In defense, the defendant- Setraco Ltd submitted that Bernard as
a casual employee was not given an Employment Letter, Condition of
Service, or Identity Card of the Company neither does he have a
Staff Number and is not entitled to any form of allowance or any
form of financial benefit.

The Learned counsel to the firm, I. Onyeanwu Esq with C.C. Dim
Esq submitted that the bernard was not able to establish by any
iota of evidence that the firm maliciously prosecuted him and did
not state before the court in any way where the firm insisted on
his prosecution against any finding by the Police that he was
innocent or not on night duty.

Learned counsel contended that it is clear from the evidence
above that the Claimant was not a regular staff and that was why he
had no basic and regular salary as his wages depend on the number
of days he worked in a month and more so as all the months do not
have an equal number of days, urged the court to dismiss the
case.

In opposition, Learned counsel to Bernard, Collins Akebofa Esq
argued that the firm did not deny being in possession of
counterpart copies of his client employment documents but failed to
bring them before the court despite the notice to produce same,
urged the court to hold that the Claimant has led sufficient
evidence to dislodge any suggestion, insinuation or assumption that
he is a casual staff and to grant all the reliefs as can be seen
from his statement of claim.

Delivering the judgment after careful evaluation of the
submission of both parties, the presiding judge, Justice Bashar
Alkali held that Bernard Benemone was not able to establish any
case of malicious prosecution against the firm, that the fact that
Bernard’s was discharged for the offense charged cannot set the law
in motion against the firm.

Furthermore, on the claim for 52 million naira specific damages,
the court held that the claims fall under the terms of the contract
and the claimant has failed to plead the terms of the contract
which he has with the defendant and also failed to tender any
document to aid the court to arrive at a just decision as the court
cannot speculate on the terms of the contract between the
parties.

On the claim for entitlement, Justice Alkali says thus:

“looking at the claims of the Claimant there is nowhere in the
claims where the Claimant prays for the payment of these
entitlements. And this court is not a father Christmas to give a
Claimant relief not sought. Therefore that aspect of the case of
the Claimant is hereby discountenanced.”