PETER EKEMEZIE, PhD V ANAMBRA STATE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
April 22, 2026MR. W.G. ONORIOSE V FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION & ANOR
April 22, 2026Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board V Divine Rays British School Limited
Legalpedia Citation: (2025-12) Legalpedia 53038 (NIC)
In the National Industrial Court of Nigeria
Holden at Awka
Fri Dec 5, 2025
Suit Number: NICN/AWK/36/2024
CORAM
HON. JUSTICE J.I. TARGEMA, PhD-JUDGE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA
PARTIES
Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board
CLAIMANT(S) / APPLICANT(S)
Divine Rays British School Limited
DEFENDANTS/ RESPONDENTS
AREA(S) OF LAW
EMPLOYMENT LAW, LABOUR LAW, JURISDICTION, LIMITATION OF ACTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION LAW, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW, CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRELIMINARY OBJECTION, CONTINUING BREACH, DECLARATORY RELIEF
SUMMARY OF FACTS
The Claimant, the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Management Board (NSITFMB), is a statutory body established under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 (ECA), with the mandate to administer the Employees’ Compensation Scheme and manage the Employees’ Compensation Fund. The Defendant, Divine Rays British School Limited, is a private educational institution incorporated on 22nd May 2017, with its business address at No. 5 Mike Ajaegbo Street, Obosi, Anambra State. The Defendant has, since its incorporation, engaged teachers and administrative staff in the operation of its school.
The Claimant, in the discharge of its statutory mandate, introduced the Employees’ Compensation Scheme to the Defendant through a letter dated 16th January 2024. It followed up with a Notice/Request for Registration dated 6th February 2024, a Reminder Notice dated 28th February 2024, a Notice of Statutory Assessment of Salary/Wages Record dated 16th April 2024, and a Pre-Legal Action Notice dated 30th April 2024. All these correspondences were sent via registered courier and duly served on the Defendant. Despite these repeated statutory notices spanning several months, the Defendant allegedly failed, refused, and neglected to register with the Employees’ Compensation Scheme, furnish accurate payroll information to the Claimant, permit access to its workplace for inspection, or remit the mandatory 1% monthly contribution to the Employees’ Compensation Fund from May 2017 to the date of the action.
The Claimant commenced this action by way of Originating Summons dated and filed on 23rd July 2024, pursuant to Order 2 Rule 1 and Order 3 Rule 3 of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017. The Originating Summons was supported by an 18-paragraph affidavit deposed to by Okeke Ugomma, a Senior Manager and Compliance Officer in the Claimant’s Onitsha Branch, together with five documentary exhibits (NSITFMB 1–5) and a written address. The Claimant sought declaratory reliefs, compliance orders, inspection access, a 40% penalty on estimated payroll, 10% interest on the estimated payroll, and general damages of N2,000,000.00.
The Defendant filed a 28-paragraph Amended Counter-Affidavit deposed to by Mrs. Ifeoma Ucheama, along with a written address in opposition. The Defendant raised a Notice of Preliminary Objection challenging jurisdiction, contending that the suit was statute-barred, that the Claimant had failed to comply with mandatory pre-action conditions precedent under Sections 55(4) and 68(3) of the ECA, that this Court’s jurisdiction under the Act was only appellate, and that the action was caught by the 12-month limitation period under Section 25 of the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund Act. The Defendant also denied being an “employer” within the meaning of the ECA, claiming to be a missionary school under the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Onitsha established as a charitable and faith-based institution, and asserting that its teachers were engaged and remunerated by the Parents-Teachers Association while corps members received allowances directly from the Federal Government.
The Claimant filed a Counter-Affidavit to the Preliminary Objection and a Reply on Points of Law, furnishing additional exhibits including a New Registration Breakdown List for the 2024/2025 Academic Session (Exhibit NSITFMB 7) and an Occupational Safety and Health Awareness Notice (Exhibit NSITFMB 8). The Claimant maintained that the relevant enabling statute was the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 and not the NSITF Act; that the jurisdiction of the Court was properly invoked; that Section 55(4) of the ECA applied only to compensation appeals and not to contribution enforcement; and that the Defendant’s continuous non-remittance constituted a recurring breach, thereby negativing any limitation plea.
The Court, upon determining the Preliminary Objection, dismissed it in its entirety. It held that the subject matter fell squarely within the Court’s jurisdiction; that Section 55(4) of the ECA had no bearing on the enforcement of employer contribution obligations; that the Public Officers Protection Act did not avail the Defendant as a private entity; and that the continuing nature of the monthly obligation to remit under Section 33(1) of the ECA meant the cause of action was not extinguished by limitation. The Court then proceeded to determine the substantive suit on the merits.
On the merits, the Court found that the Defendant qualified as an employer under Section 73 of the ECA by reason of its control over and derivation of benefit from the labour of its teaching and administrative staff, regardless of the claimed PTA payment structure. It held that the Defendant was obliged to register, furnish payroll records, and remit contributions, and that its persistent failure constituted a continuing breach of statutory duty. The Court granted most of the reliefs sought but refused Reliefs 7, 8, and 9 — being the claim for a 40% penalty on estimated payroll (no statutory basis for the rate), 10% interest on estimated payroll (no statutory or contractual foundation), and general damages of N2,000,000 (the Claimant, as a statutory body, had not suffered personal loss). Costs of ₦250,000 were awarded in favour of the Claimant.
HELD
The Court dismissed the Preliminary Objection in its entirety, holding that: the Defendant’s written address, though procedurally defective for non-compliance with Order 17 Rule 1(7) of the NICN Rules, was not rendered wholly incompetent given that a challenge to jurisdiction may be raised in any form; the subject matter of the suit — recovery of statutory contributions under the ECA — fell squarely within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Industrial Court by virtue of Section 254C(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Section 7 of the NIC Act, 2006; Section 55(4) of the ECA applied only to compensation appeals by injured employees and had no bearing whatsoever on contribution enforcement proceedings; the Public Officers Protection Act did not avail the Defendant, which is a private entity, and not a public officer acting in execution of a public duty; and the failure to remit monthly contributions under Section 33(1) of the ECA constituted a continuing breach renewing the cause of action from month to month, so that the action was not statute-barred.
On the merits, the Court held that the Defendant was an employer within the meaning of Section 73 of the ECA, as it controlled and derived economic benefit from the services of its teaching and administrative staff regardless of the payment structure it sought to hide behind. The Court granted declaratory reliefs that the Defendant was an employer under the ECA and had breached its statutory duty; ordered the Defendant within thirty days to register with the Employees’ Compensation Scheme, furnish accurate payroll records from May 2017 to date, and remit the assessed 1% monthly contributions; and granted officers of the Claimant liberty to enter and inspect the Defendant’s workplace and records for enforcement purposes. Reliefs 7, 8, and 9 — claiming a 40% penalty on estimated payroll, 10% interest on estimated payroll, and N2,000,000 general damages — were refused for lacking statutory, contractual, or legal foundation. Costs of ₦250,000 were awarded in favour of the Claimant.
ISSUES
On the Preliminary Objection, the Court identified the following issues for determination:
1. Whether the Defendant’s Preliminary Objection is competent in law?
2. Whether the Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit?
3. Whether the action is statute-barred and/or premature?
On the substantive suit, the Court adopted a composite issue for determination, formulated as follows:
4. Whether, upon the facts and evidence before the Court, the Defendant is an employer within the meaning of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, and whether it is bound to register, furnish payroll records, and remit contributions to the Employees’ Compensation Fund as required by law?
(The Claimant had originally formulated four issues relating to the Defendant’s status as an employer, its continuous default, the Claimant’s entitlement to enforce compliance, and this Court’s jurisdiction. The Defendant formulated a single issue: whether the Claimant was entitled to the reliefs sought.)
RATIONES DECIDENDI
WRITTEN ADDRESS — CONSEQUENCES OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH MANDATORY PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER ORDER 17 RULE 1(7) OF THE NICN RULES
“I have carefully examined the Defendant’s Written Address and observed that it does not comply with the above requirements. The Defendant’s Counsel merely made general submissions and assertions without identifying the specific issues formulated for determination by the Court, nor were the arguments clearly compartmentalized and supported by appropriate authorities under distinct issues. In effect, the address is more of a narration of points of law than a structured written argument as contemplated by the Rules of this Honourable Court.” – Per J.I. Targema J
RULES OF COURT — RULES ARE MADE TO BE OBEYED AND REGULATE PROCEEDINGS TO ACHIEVE FAIRNESS AND ORDERLINESS; NON-COMPLIANCE MAY RENDER PROCESS INCOMPETENT
“It is settled law that rules of court are not mere technicalities or decorations to be observed at the convenience of counsel. They are made to be obeyed and to regulate proceedings in order to achieve fairness and orderliness in the administration of justice. See A-G Federation v. A-G Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 689 at 741, where the Supreme Court held that ‘rules of court are meant to be followed; non-compliance is not a mere irregularity but may render the process incompetent.'” – Per J.I. Targema J
JURISDICTION — NON-COMPLIANCE WITH RULES OF COURT DOES NOT RENDER A JURISDICTIONAL CHALLENGE INCOMPETENT; JURISDICTION CAN BE RAISED IN ANY FORM
“In the present circumstance, while I find that the Defendant’s written address is procedurally defective for failing to comply with Order 17 Rule 1(7) of the Rules, I do not consider such non-compliance fatal to the entire objection. The Defendant has still succeeded in bringing before this Court a challenge touching on jurisdiction — an issue that can be raised at any time and in any form, even orally, and which the Court is bound to consider once raised.” – Per J.I. Targema J
JURISDICTION OF THE NICN — RECOVERY OF STATUTORY CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT FALLS SQUARELY WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT
“The combined reading of these provisions leaves no doubt that disputes connected with the administration, enforcement, or recovery of statutory obligations under the Employees’ Compensation Act are matters within the exclusive domain of this Court. This Court so held in NSITF Management Board v. Caritas University (Unreported, Suit No. NICN/EN/37/2023, delivered on 26th November 2024), where it affirmed its competence to entertain suits relating to the enforcement of contributions and liabilities under the Employees’ Compensation Scheme.” – Per J.I. Targema J
SECTION 55(4) OF THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT — THE PROVISION APPLIES ONLY TO COMPENSATION APPEALS BY EMPLOYEES AND HAS NO BEARING ON ENFORCEMENT OF EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION OBLIGATIONS
“A careful and contextual reading of Section 55 as a whole shows that it deals exclusively with decisions made by the Board of the Employees’ Compensation Fund in respect of applications for compensation by employees or their dependants — not the recovery of statutory contributions from employers. Subsections (1) to (3) speak of appeals by ‘a person aggrieved by a decision of the Board’ in relation to payment of compensation, which is conceptually distinct from the Claimant’s claim for unremitted employer contributions under Section 33 of the Act.” – Per J.I. Targema J
PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT — THE ACT DOES NOT AVAIL A PRIVATE CORPORATE EMPLOYER AND CANNOT BE INVOKED AS A LIMITATION DEFENCE IN PROCEEDINGS FOR RECOVERY OF STATUTORY CONTRIBUTIONS
“The Defendant in the present case is a private company, not an agency or institution of government. Its statutory obligation to remit 1% of its total monthly payroll to the Employees’ Compensation Fund under Section 33(1) of the ECA, 2010, is imposed in its capacity as an employer, not as a public functionary. The Defendant’s failure to perform that statutory duty cannot therefore be characterized as an act done ‘in pursuance or execution of a public duty.'” – Per J.I. Targema J
CONTINUING BREACH — THE MONTHLY OBLIGATION TO REMIT CONTRIBUTIONS UNDER SECTION 33(1) OF THE ECA CONSTITUTES A CONTINUING BREACH RENEWING THE CAUSE OF ACTION FROM MONTH TO MONTH
“In the instant case, the obligation imposed by Section 33(1) of the Employees’ Compensation Act requires every employer to pay monthly contributions equal to 1% of its total payroll into the Employees’ Compensation Fund. Each month, the employer’s obligation to remit arises anew. Thus, every failure to remit constitutes a distinct and recurring breach. The cause of action, therefore, is not a one-off infraction but a continuing default that persists so long as the employer remains in arrears of payment.” – Per J.I. Targema J
CONTINUING BREACH — NON-REMITTANCE OF STATUTORY MONTHLY CONTRIBUTIONS CONSTITUTES A CONTINUING BREACH; THE PLEA OF LIMITATION UNDER THE PUBLIC OFFICERS PROTECTION ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED
“The non-remittance of statutory monthly contributions under the Employees’ Compensation Act constitutes a continuing breach, as the obligation to remit arises every month. Accordingly, the plea of limitation under the Public Officers Protection Act cannot be sustained.” – Per J.I. Targema J in NSITF Management Board v. Caritas University (Unreported, Suit No. NICN/EN/37/2023, judgment delivered 26th November 2024), adopted by J.I. Targema J
DEFINITION OF “EMPLOYER” UNDER SECTION 73 OF THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT — THE DETERMINING FACTOR IS CONTROL OVER AND ECONOMIC BENEFIT FROM THE WORK PERFORMED, NOT THE NOMENCLATURE OF WHO ISSUES PAYMENT
“The Court notes that the Defendant’s argument that teachers and staff are engaged exclusively by the Parents-Teachers Association (PTA) or that corps members are paid by the Federal Government does not negate the fact that the Defendant, as a corporate entity, retains control and derives economic benefit from their services. The law recognizes the concept of ‘economic dependence and control’ as determinative of the employment relationship. The legal test does not turn on the nomenclature of who issues payment, but rather on the substance of the employment relationship: who directs the work, who sets the terms of engagement, and who benefits from the labor performed.” – Per J.I. Targema J
STATUTORY OBLIGATION TO REMIT CONTRIBUTIONS — THE ECA IMPOSES AN ONGOING AND MANDATORY OBLIGATION ON ALL EMPLOYERS WITHOUT DISTINCTION AS TO PROFIT ORIENTATION OR ORGANIZATIONAL TYPE
“This provision makes it unambiguously clear that all employers, without exception, are mandated by law to contribute to the Fund. The statute imposes an ongoing obligation, first to register within two years of the commencement of the Act and subsequently to make monthly contributions calculated as a percentage of the total payroll. The legislative intent is to ensure that every employer in Nigeria participates in the statutory compensation scheme, thereby guaranteeing protection and redress for employees who may suffer work-related injuries, disability, disease, or death.” – Per J.I. Targema J
CHARITABLE OR MISSIONARY STATUS — SUCH STATUS DOES NOT EXEMPT AN ENTITY FROM STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION ACT
“The Court further finds that the Defendant’s reliance on its missionary, charitable, or educational status does not exempt it from statutory obligations under the ECA. The statute draws no distinction between commercial and non-profit entities. All bodies, whether profit-making, charitable, or governmental, are subject to the same mandatory duties. This position is reinforced by the authority of A.G. Federation v. A.G. Abia State (2001) 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 689, where the Supreme Court held that statutory duties must be performed irrespective of the personality, status, or nature of the entity involved.” – Per J.I. Targema J
PENALTY AND INTEREST RELIEFS — RELIEFS SEEKING A FIXED PERCENTAGE PENALTY AND INTEREST ON ESTIMATED PAYROLL ARE REFUSED WHERE THE STATUTE PRESCRIBES NO SPECIFIC RATE AND NO CONTRACTUAL OR STATUTORY BASIS EXISTS
“With respect to Relief 7, which seeks payment of 40% of the Defendant’s estimated total monthly payroll as penalty, the Court acknowledges that Section 39(4) of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 empowers the Board to impose penalties for failure to remit statutory contributions. However, the provision does not stipulate any fixed or uniform rate of penalty, nor does it authorize the application of a blanket 40% of payroll as claimed by the Claimant. While the existence of a penalty framework under the Act is not in doubt, the quantum sought in this instance has no express foundation in the statute or any subsidiary legislation made thereunder. The Court is bound by the clear words of the law and cannot import or invent a percentage that the legislature has not prescribed.” – Per J.I. Targema J
GENERAL DAMAGES — A STATUTORY ENFORCEMENT BODY THAT HAS SUFFERED NO PERSONAL LOSS OR DAMAGE IS NOT ENTITLED TO AN AWARD OF GENERAL DAMAGES IN A CONTRIBUTION RECOVERY ACTION
“The Claimant, being a statutory body, has not suffered personal loss or damage that would justify an award of general damages. The Act provides for recovery of unpaid contributions and enforcement of compliance, but does not permit general damages for the enforcing agency.” – Per J.I. Targema J
CASES CITED
STATUTES REFERRED TO
• Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended) — Section 254C(1)(a)–(m)
• Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010 — Sections 2(1); 32(1)(a)–(c); 33(1); 34(1)–(3); 36(1)–(2); 39(1)–(4); 40(1)–(5); 53(1)–(7); 54(a)–(g); 55(1)–(4); 68(3); 71; 73
• National Industrial Court Act, 2006 — Sections 7 and 14
• National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 — Order 2 Rule 1; Order 3 Rules 3 and 4; Order 5 Rule 1; Order 9 Rules 1(3)–(4); Order 17 Rule 1(7); Order 64 Rule 13(2)
OTHER CITATIONS
