National Industrial Court dismisses ₦30,000 wage claim over stock-count closure

The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Ibadan Judicial Division, dismissed Bisi Akinwale’s claim for ₦30,000 in wages for a week when the shop was closed for a stock count. It also rejected Kunle Adebayo’s request for punitive costs, ordering neither party to pay the other.

The dispute turned on whether staying home during the closure meant unpaid absence or paid availability. Akinwale established her weekly wage, but the court found that she had not proved an entitlement to payment for that particular week.

The signed wage agreement fixed Akinwale’s pay at ₦30,000 a week. It said nothing about temporary closures or standby time, leaving the central question unanswered: did pay continue while she stayed away during the stock count?

The court considered Akinwale’s own account as direct evidence, not as an absence of evidence. Her account was consistent, but Adebayo disputed paid standby, and no message, separate witness, schedule, policy or other independent record resolved that conflict. The court was not satisfied that paid standby was more likely than not.

Adebayo’s reliance on an attendance sheet did not independently establish his version either. Although he described an entry recording Akinwale as away without pay, the sheet was not presented as an exhibit. Even that description would not explain why she was absent or whether she had been instructed to remain available.

The distinction mattered because Akinwale bore the burden of proving that wages were due. Establishing the weekly rate alone did not establish a debt for the closure week. The dismissal was therefore not a finding that Adebayo’s account had been independently proved.

The court also found no basis for punitive costs. Failure to prove the wage claim did not establish malice; the record showed a genuine dispute about the closure.

Akinwale argued that she had not chosen to miss work or abandoned her job. She said Adebayo told her to stay home during the stock count and that she understood she should remain available with pay continuing. She sought only one week’s wages, without additional damages or costs.

She acknowledged that the agreement did not address standby pay and that she had no message or separate witness supporting her account. She maintained that an attendance entry showing no pay could not explain the reason for her absence.

Adebayo argued that the weekly rate applied to weeks actually worked and that Akinwale had done no work during the disputed week. He sought dismissal and punitive costs for alleged malicious prosecution, but supplied no separate evidence supporting that additional remedy.

Akinwale worked as a shop assistant and had received ₦30,000 for each of the two preceding weeks. The dispute concerned only the stock-count week, which she did not attend.

The judgment leaves the agreed weekly rate established but does not settle a general entitlement to wages during shop closures. Its outcome rests on the evidence presented about this particular week and the agreement’s silence on standby pay.