By Unini Chioma 

His Lordship, Hon. Justice Elizabeth Oji of the National Industrial Court, Lagos Judicial Division has dismissed the case filed by Mr. Festus Irenonse against Tecno Telecoms and 3 others for lack of proof.

The Court held that there’s no proof that Tecno Telecoms and 3 others deceived Mr. Festus into entering the employment relationship that holding otherwise will question Mr. Festus’s education and professionalism in its totality.

From facts, the Claimant, Mr. Festus had alleged that he was deceived by Tecno Telecoms and 3 others into believing that Techno Telecoms was his employer through the oral discussions and interview he had with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants; that the firm deliberately connived with another firm to execute an unclear employment policy.

He submitted that before the issuing of the employment letter, he was informed that the Telecom firm will be his employer and the employment letter was issued in the name of Total data Ltd.

He sought amongst others for a declaration that the Tecno Telecoms and 3 others are liable for negligent misstatement for negligently representing inaccurate facts which induced her to accept the Offer of Employment with the telecom firm, sought for the sum of N100, 000, 000 (One Hundred Million Naira) for damages.

In defense, Total data Ltd maintained that it employed Mr. Festus to work in the 1st Defendant which he accepted all terms and conditions in the employment letter, that the telecom firm was not privy to the employment of the Claimant.

The firm counsel, O O Aribaba Esq argued that there is no evidence that Mr. Festus was induced whatsoever in accepting the offer letter that his taxes and pensions were remitted during the time the Claimant was employed by Total Data Ltd.

Delivering the judgment, the presiding judge, Justice Elizabeth Oji held that there are no elements of deceit and evidence of any misstatement in the claimant contract of employment that whatever statements, whether deceitful or misstated that may have existed, was totally cured by the execution of the offer of employment.

“Assuming the Defendants represented a different set of facts to the Claimant and presented an offer letter expressing entirely different terms other than what was agreed, and the Claimant went ahead to sign the contract, then he cannot succeed in an action for damages premised on any false or misleading representation.” Justice Oji ruled