Justice Ibrahim Ahmad Kala of a Federal High Court, Lagos, has fixed November 19, 2026, for further hearing of a suit instituted by the Nigeria’s Industrial Training Fund (ITF) against Seplat Energy Producing Nigeria Unlimited, over alleged unpaid training levy of about N4.907 billion, for the years of 2013 to 2016.
The judge fixed the date at the instance of the Seplat Energy, whose lawyer prayed the court for adjournment to open its defence to the suit, when the matter came up for hearing on Wednesday.
ITF and its Governing Council in the suit marked FHC/L/CS/177/2025, are praying the court to order Seplat Energy Producing Nigeria Unlimited to pay the sum of N4.907 billion outstanding statutory training contribution for the years 2013 to 2016.
They are also demanding for interest at the rate of five percent per month on the alleged debt from February 13, 2020, until judgment and thereafter until the judgment sum is fully liquidated.
The ITF, in its amended Statement of Claim filed pursuant to an order of the court dated January 21, 2025, maintained that Seplat, being an employer of labour with five or more employees, was liable to make statutory contributions to the Fund.
The plaintiffs also alleged that the dispute arose from Seplat’s refusal to accept the inclusion of certain staff-related costs in the computation of its annual payroll for the relevant years.
According to the ITF, Seplat objected to the inclusion of contract labour costs involving national and non-national employees outsourced through manpower service providers, including salaries and benefits relating to Nigerian Supernumerary Police (SPY) officers deployed to its facilities.
The company also reportedly challenged the inclusion of other benefits paid through third-party manpower providers, as well as a provisional sum representing its contribution to its staff pension fund.
The ITF said it explained to Seplat that the outsourced contract staff and Spy Police officers were, for the purpose of the statutory contribution, bona fide employees of the company. Adding that relied on a Supreme Court judgment delivered on April 20, 2018, which it said supported its position on the status of the affected workers.
The Fund further stated that it issued seven demand notices to Seplat between November 2017 and January 2020 through its financial consultants, Jim Okhai & Co., and solicitors, Clifford Okoye & Co.
It said several meetings were subsequently held between the parties to reconcile their differences but failed to produce an agreement.
The plaintiffs’ witness, Dr James Akpeokhai, a Chartered Accountant with Jim Okhai & Co., in his Statement on Oath, reaffirmed the Fund’s claim and urged the court to grant the reliefs sought.
However, Seplat, in its Consequential Amended Statement of Defence, denied owing the ITF any outstanding contribution.
The company contended that it was up to date with its statutory contributions for 2013 to 2016 and had no outstanding liability whatsoever.
Seplat further stated that it had been recognised and given awards by the ITF in 2013, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2021 as the best contributor in the Victoria Island area of Lagos State.
The company rejected the ITF’s contention that the Spy Police officers deployed to its facilities were its employees, insisting that they remained employees of the Nigerian Police Force.
Seplat also argued that the 2018 Supreme Court decision relied upon by the ITF did not constitute a blanket declaration that all Spy Police officers deployed to third parties were employees of those companies.
The energy company described the suit as frivolous and vexatious, arguing that it disclosed no cause of action against it.
Seplat consequently prayed the Court to dismiss the suit and award costs against the ITF on a full indemnity basis.
Meanwhile, at the further hearing of the matter on Wednesday, the plaintiffs were represented by A. B. Gapa, while Seplat Energy was represented by C. M. Ofoma.
Seplat Energy lawyer, Ofoma informed the court that the matter was for defence. She however asked the court for an adjournment. The position which was not opposed by the plaintiffs’ lawyer.
Consequently, Justice Kala adjourned the matter to November 19, for Seplat Energy to open its defence to the suit.
