Federal Capital Development Authority V. The Governing Council Of The National Industrial Training Fund & Anor (2009)

LawGlobal-Hub Lead Judgment Report

ABDU ABOKI, J.C.A.

This Appeal is against the decision of the Federal High Court sitting at Abuja delivered by A.I. Chikere J. on the 29th day of June, 2005.

The fact of the case is that the 1st Respondent is a Federal Government Parastatal established under the Industrial Training Fund Decree No. 47 of 1971 as amended by the Industrial Training Fund Act, Cap 182, Laws of the Federation of 1990 and charged with the sole responsibility of promoting and encouraging acquisition of skills in Industry and Commerce with a view to generating a pool of indigenous trained manpower sufficient to meet the needs of the economy; whilst the 2nd Plaintiff/Respondent is its Director-General/Chief Executive.

The Respondents alleged that in order to achieve its objective, the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent established Area Offices allover the Federation charged with the responsibility of recovering/Collecting 1% of the gross payroll from all employers of Labour in Industry of Commerce having twenty-five or more employees in its establishment. In order to realize the above-stated objectives, the Plaintiffs/Respondents requested the Defendant/Appellant to fulfill its legal obligation towards them. However, the Defendant/Appellant repudiated liability contending in the main that it does not come within the purview of the Statute that established the 1st Plaintiff/Respondent.

The Respondents, through their Solicitors, wrote several letters demanding that the Appellant comply with the Respondents’ enabling Law.

Consequent upon the failure of Defendant/Appellant to comply, the Plaintiffs/Respondents instituted an action against the Defendant/Appellant at the lower Court which Court granted all the reliefs of the Plaintiffs/Respondents and also held that the Defendant/Appellant is liable to register with the Plaintiffs/Respondents and to contribute 1% of its annual payroll to the Fund. The Defendant/Appellant being dissatisfied with the Judgment has now appealed to the Court of Appeal.

Parties have exchanged their Briefs. The Appellant’s Brief of Argument dated 12th January, 2007 was filed on 14th February, 2007 while the Respondents’ Brief of Argument was filed on the 8th Day of December, 2008.

From the two grounds of Appeal contained in the Notice of Appeal and one additional ground of Appeal, two issues were distilled on behalf of the Appellant for the determination of this Appeal and they read as follows:

“(1) Whether the trial Court rightly held that the Appellant falls within the category of persons to contribute to the Fund being an employer of labour that pays wages and salaries to its employees?

(2) Whether the trial Judge rightly interpreted the provision of S.12 of the Industrial Training Fund (I.T.F.) Act Cap 182 Laws of the Federation 1990 to confer obligation on to the Appellant who is an employer of labour to refer to the Minister any question of fact arising as to the liability under the I.T.F. Act?”

The Respondents filed no issue but adopted the issues formulated by the Appellant for the determination of this Appeal.

Issue 1:-

“Whether the trial Judge rightly held that the Appellant fails within the category of persons to contribute to the Fund being an employer of labour that pays wages and salaries to its employees?”

Counsel for the Appellant, Betty A. Umegbulem (Miss) referred the Court to Section 15(1) of the Industrial Training Fund Act Cap 12 laws of the Federation 1990 and submitted that the Section is very clear and unambiguous on its definition of an employer.