Justice (Dr.) I.J. Essien delivered the judgment on December 4, 2025, in Suit No. NICN/LA/688/2018, holding that Panaserv breached its duty of care by failing to provide prompt and adequate medical treatment to the claimant following an accident that occurred in the course of his employment.
The National Industrial Court of Nigeria, Lagos Judicial Division, has awarded ₦10million in damages against Panaserv Nigeria Limited for abandoning one of its drivers, Mr. Fatai Ganiu, after he sustained serious injuries while carrying out an official assignment for the company.
Justice (Dr.) I.J. Essien delivered the judgment on December 4, 2025, in Suit No. NICN/LA/688/2018, holding that Panaserv breached its duty of care by failing to provide prompt and adequate medical treatment to the claimant following an accident that occurred in the course of his employment.
SaharaReporters learnt that lawyers from Femi Aborisade's Chambers were the driver's counsel. The case was handled pro bono while judgment was delivered in favour of the worker on December 4.
Ganiu, who instituted the suit in December 2018, told the court that he had worked continuously as a driver for Panaserv since 2008 without being issued a formal letter of employment, contrary to Section 7(1) of the Labour Act.
He had said his employment came with monthly salaries, leave allowances and Christmas bonuses, all of which were periodically reviewed upward over the years.
According to the claimant, his monthly salary had risen to ₦46,000 as of 2015, with leave allowance of ₦32,000 and Christmas bonus of ₦34,000. He said these entitlements were paid regularly until June 1, 2016, when his life took a drastic turn.
Ganiu testified that on that day, he was directed by the management of Panaserv to take one of the company’s vehicles to Hyundai Motors at Oshodi for inspection and servicing.
After the inspection, he was issued a service form and bill and was on his way back to the office when he was knocked down by a motorcycle at Charity Bus Stop along the Oshodi Expressway.
He told the court that he lost consciousness and sustained serious injuries to his leg.
After receiving first aid at a nearby pharmacy, he said he contacted Panaserv’s administrative manager, who instructed him to report to the office the next day so management could verify the incident and enable him access medical treatment through the company’s health insurance.
However, when he reported to the office, Ganiu said he was informed that his health insurance card had expired.
He tendered the expired Royal Exchange Insurance card before the court. According to him, instead of renewing the insurance or directing him to a designated hospital, the company asked him to seek treatment elsewhere and submit the bills for reimbursement.
The claimant told the court that Panaserv never fulfilled this promise. He said he sought treatment at several medical facilities, including private clinics and a general hospital, incurring huge expenses. He added that doctors later advised that his leg might need to be amputated due to infection, an option he rejected.
Ganiu said the injuries left him partially permanently disabled, unable to work and without any means of livelihood. He added that the company stopped paying his salaries, allowances and bonuses, and never formally terminated his employment.
In its defence, Panaserv admitted that Ganiu was its employee but denied liability, claiming that he abandoned his job in June 2016 without notice.
The company also argued that the accident did not occur in the course of employment and alleged that the claimant aggravated his injuries by seeking treatment from “quacks” instead of orthopaedic hospitals.
Panaserv further filed a counterclaim, asking the court to order Ganiu to pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice and refund alleged loans granted to him.
However, Justice Essien dismissed the company’s arguments, holding that the accident occurred in the course of employment and that the claimant was entitled to compensation under the Employees’ Compensation Act.
The court relied on Sections 7 and 11 of the Act, which extend compensation to injuries sustained while an employee is working outside the normal workplace with the employer’s authorisation.
The judge described Panaserv’s claim that the claimant was on a “frolic of his own” as untenable, noting that the company had admitted sending him to Hyundai Motors on the day of the accident.
Justice Essien also faulted Panaserv for failing to issue the claimant a valid health insurance card despite evidence that the insurance policy had been renewed. He held that directing an injured worker to seek treatment elsewhere without support amounted to a breach of duty of care.
In a ruling, the court held that Panaserv’s failure to respond to the claimant’s solicitor’s letter of demand dated April 24, 2018, amounted to an admission of liability.
“The defendant cannot ignore a business letter of demand and later seek to deny the contents,” the judge ruled, citing established Court of Appeal authorities.
Consequently, the court awarded ₦10 million as general damages for the hardship, pain, emotional trauma and partial permanent disability suffered by the claimant. The court also ordered Panaserv to refund ₦565,590, being the portion of medical expenses proved by receipts tendered before the court.
On the employment status of the claimant, the court held that Panaserv never lawfully terminated Ganiu’s employment, stressing that a master cannot unilaterally assume that an injured worker has ceased to be an employee.
Justice Essien ruled that Ganiu remains an employee of Panaserv and is entitled to his outstanding salaries at the rate of ₦46,000 per month from July 2016 up to the date of judgment, as well as his leave allowances and Christmas bonuses.
The court dismissed Panaserv’s counterclaim in its entirety, describing it as lacking merit.