Ololade Adeyanju/
Another legal battle has begun for Telecommunications services provider, ETISALAT, which recently metamorphosed to 9MOBILE.
Today, the Industrial Training Fund (ITF) and its Director General renewed their battle against the Telecommunications giant in a bid to collect statutory contributions in the sum of N4, 570, 093, 340.57 from the company.
In a statement of claim filed before the court by a Lagos lawyer, Dr Clifford Okoye, it was alleged that ETISALAT, is an employer of labour, carrying on business in Nigeria, with its head office at Plot 19, Zonal Federal Government layout, Banana Island Ikoyi, Lagos Nigeria.
Despite repeated demands on the defendant by the I T F and its external solicitors, Dr Okoye, to pay the outstanding balance of I T F statutory contributions for the year 2011 to 2015 amounting to a total sum of N 4, 570,093,340.57 due and owed by the 9mobile company to the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly failed, refused and neglected to do so without any justification whatsoever.
The plaintiffs claim against the defendant is as follows: “a liquidated debt of N4, 570, 093, 340, 57, being the total outstanding balance of statutory contribution due and owed by the defendant to the plaintiffs for the year 2011 to 2015.
“Interest on the said sum at the rate of 5% per month on the outstanding debt commencing from 12th July 2017 until the judgement is delivered.”
However, in a statement of defence filed before the court by Mrs Funke Adekoya SAN on behalf of the telecommunications company, the company averred that it does not owe the ITF the sum of N4, 570, 093, 340.57 or any sum whatsoever which was wrongly assessed as paid statutory training contribution to the ITF as alleged by the Plaintiffs, as the company has duly paid total sum of N673,129.66 for the years 2011 to 2015.
The company also contended that it is entitled to a refund of the N275,863,868.93 amount it overpaid to the ITF as its statutory training contribution for the period of 2011 to 2015, therefore, counterclaim in the sum of N275,863.93 and consequently urged the court to direct ITF to refund the overpayment.
However, in its reply to the defence of the company, ITF averred that the payment made by the defendants were all done after the defendant’s self-assessment of what it believed were its due statutory contributions to the fund in respect of those years, “but after the verification exercise by ITF on the books of the defendant, the defendant was rather embarrassed for being, as they were caught in the act of evading its statutory liability for the past years”.
It also stated that consequently, “the belated objections being raised after five years by the defendant are a mere afterthought, as the defendants did not make any excess payments to the plaintiffs as computed and certified by its competent and reliable accountants and Human Resources Managers”.
The plaintiffs, therefore, urged the court to discountenance the counterclaim of the defendant as same is frivolous, vexatious and lacked merit.
0