By Elvis Evbaruovbokhanre Asia
Case: Mr. Bayem P. Mirabel v. Top Steel Nig. Limited & Ors
Judge: Justice Ikechi Gerald Nweneka
Date: 24/07/2025
Main Issues of Law
Nature of employment contracts
Triangular or co-employmentc.
Duty of Care & Employee Safety
Permanent disability under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
Duties under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
Damages for workplace injury
Summary of Facts
The claimant was recruited by the 2nd Defendant, Golden Ventures Ltd, on behalf of the 1st Defendant, Top Steel Nig. Ltd, which issued him an identity card bearing both companies’ names. He was assigned to the pot maintenance department without formal training and tasked with loading and unloading materials using a tractor. The 1st Defendant determined the nature of his work and supervised him through the 2nd Defendant, which processed his wages.
On 2 January 2015, while carrying out his duties, the claimant fell from a tractor allegedly driven by an untrained supervisor, Mr. Vic Branser, and the vehicle ran over his right foot. He alleged that the accident was caused by the defendants’ failure to provide a safe workplace, protective equipment, and first-aid facilities. After being taken to the 3rd Defendant, M-Cred Hospital, he claimed he was abandoned without adequate follow-up care, resulting in permanent disability and a skin condition he attributed to the hospital’s treatment. He sought declarations of breach of duty of care, compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act, and damages.
The 1st Defendant denied employing the claimant in the capacity alleged or being negligent, disputing the accident’s details and the cause of the alleged injuries. The 3rd Defendant denied liability, asserting it provided proper treatment and that the claimant’s skin discolouration was due to vitiligo, unrelated to its care. Court’s Decision.
The court held that the 1st and 2nd Defendants were co-employers of the claimant, noting that the 1st Defendant had misrepresented the nature of the employment relationship to avoid conferring normal employment rights and benefits.
On negligence, the court found that the 1st Defendant failed in its duty to provide safety boots and safe transportation. The tractor used to move the claimant was unsafe, lacking seats or handrails, and there was no evidence of on-site first-aid facilities. The 1st and 2nd Defendants also breached their statutory obligation under the Employees’ Compensation Act by failing to report the accident and injury to the NSITF and to file a compensation application within one year.
The court rejected the claims of permanent disability and skin discolouration due to lack of proof. It awarded the claimant two years’ salary as compensation for the injury arising from the defendants’ breach of duty and dismissed the claims for aggravated damages and loss of future earnings.
Legal Principles Relied Upon
1. Nature of Employment Contracts
Employment relationships can be oral, written, or inferred from conduct. Key features include the employer’s obligation to hire and pay wages, control over the work, and the right to dismiss for reasonable cause; the employee must obey lawful instructions and perform agreed duties.
2. Triangular or co-employment
The concept of a triangular employment relationship is well-established in our labour jurisprudence.
This occurs when employees of one enterprise perform work for another enterprise, to which their employer supplies labour or services. Such relationships come in various forms, with the most common being those involving contractors and private employment agencies.
3. Duty of Care & Employee Safety Employers have a strict duty to provide safety at work, including adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) like safety boots and properly equipped machinery. Failure to do so constitutes negligence.
4. Permanent Disability under Employees’ Compensation Act
Section 73 of the Employees’ Compensation Act, 2010, defines permanent partial disability as a physical, mental, or physiological condition that arises in the course of employment and results in a deviation from what is typical for the individual’s age, thereby limiting his participation in societal activities. This definition also applies to permanent total disability. Permanent disability must be proved.
5. Duties under the Employees’ Compensation Act Employers must report injuries to the NSITF and apply for compensation within one year. Non-compliance is a criminal offence under Sections 5(5) and 71(1). The Act’s remedies operate in lieu of other causes of action. Employees must report injuries within 14 days to the employer unless the injury occurs in the employer’s premises and is already know.
6. Damages for Workplace Injury There are no fixed rules for assessing the damages an individual suffers. The Court is responsible for awarding fair and reasonable compensation, taking into account the specific circumstances of the loss. The Court is authorised by Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, to award compensation in appropriate cases. Aggravated damages require proof of egregious conduct, while loss of future earnings is a claim for special damages, which must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Commentary:
1. Unmasking Co-Employment – This decision aligns with a long line of NICN authorities reaffirming the Court’s readiness to pierce contractual arrangements and identify the true nature of employment relationships. It is a welcome development in Nigeria, where disguised labour supply schemes have often created environments akin to “modern-day slave camps” in which factory and other workers are denied statutory benefits and protections. Employers operating under outsourced or agency arrangements should proactively review their contracts and operations to ensure they meet the legal criteria for independent employment relationships, or risk being held liable as co-employers.
2. Statutory Compliance & Duty to Provide Safety – The ruling underscores that NSITF registration and compliance with the Employees’ Compensation Act are non-negotiable legal duties. Failure to comply carries both criminal sanctions and civil liability. Importantly, the Court’s findings highlight that an employer’s duty to provide a safe workplace—including appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE), safe work systems, trained supervision, and functional first-aid facilities—is absolute. This duty cannot be avoided through sham contractual structures or by outsourcing labour. Employers should adopt a proactive safety management system, regularly assess workplace hazards, and ensure compliance with both statutory and industry-specific safety standards to avoid liability.
3. Proof and Damages – The award of two years’ salary provides a tangible benchmark for workplace injury compensation. The Court’s refusal to award aggravated damages or loss of future earnings reinforces that even under Section 19 of the NICN Act, such claims must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved. This decision illustrates that where disability or other claimed losses are not supported by credible evidence, substantial damages will be denied—regardless of established employer liability for the accident. Employers and employees alike should therefore appreciate the centrality of evidence in workplace injury litigation.
Elvis E. Asia is the Managing Partner of Law Future Partners and a PartneratBols Attorneys, Nigeria. He has an LLB, Ambrose Alli University; and LLM from the University of Lagos. He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, United Kingdom, Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators of Nigeria and the Chartered Institute of Taxation of Nigeria. Elvis is the author of the book ‘Oil and Gas Insurance and Nigeria’s Local Content Policy’