IN THE TAX APPEAL TRIBUNAL IN THE SOUTH-SOUTH ZONE
HOLDEN AT BENIN
APPEAL NO: TAT/SSZ/025/2022
BETWEEN:
POPHAM WALTER ODUSOTE
LTD------------------------------------------- APPELLANT
AND
BAYELSA STATE BOARD OF INTERNAL REVENUE & 19 ORS------------
RESPONDENT
BEFORE:
PROF. OBEHI A. ODIASE-ALEGIMENLEN CHAIRMAN
DR DAVID ALA-PETERS COMMISSIONER
MRS HILDA OFURE
OZOH COMMISSIONER
MR VITALIS FRIDAY AJOKU COMMISSIONER PROF. OLATUNDE JULIUS OTUSANYA COMMISSIONER
WEDNESDAY
8TH MAY, 2024
JUDGEMENT
This Appeal is brought before
the Tax Appeal Tribunal
(South-South Zone Sitting
in Benin), dated 13th December 2022 and filed on 15th
December 2022 in Suit No.
TAT/SSZ/025/2022.
BRIEF FACTS
The Appellant is a Limited Liability Company
that engaged in Architectural and Engineering Design Services whose office is located at No. 1, Adeola Odeku Street, Victoria Island, Lagos State while the Respondent is a body
corporate established by the Bayelsa State Board of Internal Revenue Law CAP B2
Laws of Bayelsa State, 2006 and is charged with the responsibility, amongst
others, with the collection of all taxes, fees, levies and penalties due to the
Government of Bayelsa State; and the administration of all Revenue & other
relevant tax laws in Bayelsa State as provided for in the Personal Income Tax
Act (PITA) 2011 (as Amended).
The Appellant being dissatisfied with the
Assessment and Demand Notice of the
Respondent dated 25th March 2022 and
Final Demand Notice dated 9th October 2022 appealed
to the Tax Appeal Tribunal, South-South Zone upon the grounds set out
below:
i. The Appellant
is not liable to tax in any form at all to the Respondent to the tune of
₦1,131,999,976.00 (One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-One
Million, Nine Hundred
and Ninety-Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred
and Seventy-Six Naira only) or any other sum.
ii. The
Respondent’s assessment and demand for the sum of One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-One Million, Nine Hundred and
Ninety- Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and
Seventy-Six Naira (₦1,131,999,976.00) as Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) Tax does
not reflect the actual transaction and activity of the Appellant in Bayelsa State.
iii. The
assessment and demand by the Respondent for the payment of Pay-As-You-Earn
(PAYE) Tax by the Appellant is incorrect, without basis or foundation and
against the provisions of the Personal Income Tax (Amendment) Act 2011
iv. The
assessment and demand of the Respondent for the payment of Pay-As-You-Earn
(PAYE) Tax by the Appellant is predicated on non-existent, incorrect and false
facts.
v. The
assessment and demand of the Respondent for the payment of Pay-As-You-Earn
(PAYE) Tax by the Appellant whose staff’s principal place of residence is not
in Bayelsa State but Lagos State, is illegal, erroneous, without basis and
arbitrary.
vi. The
assessment and demand of the Respondent for the payment of Pay-As- You-Earn
(PAYE) Tax for 60 staff by the Appellant whose total staff strength is at any
time far less than 60, is illegal.
vii. The
Respondent does not have the authority to make the assessment and demand for
the payment of Pay-As-You Earn (PAYE) Tax by the Appellant who has already
fulfilled its Pay-As-You Earn (PAYE) obligation in Lagos State during the years
and periods of assessments
Based on the
above grounds of this Appeal, the Appellant sought the following reliefs from
this Tribunal:
i. An Order
DECLARING the assessment and demand of the (₦1,131,999,976.00)
One Billion, Hundred and Thirty-one Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine
thousand, Nine hundred and Seventy-Six Naira only) as PAYE for the period
of 2017-2020, 2021 (anticipated) made in the demand letter titled ‘Administrative Assessment for 2017-2020’
of 25th March 2022 and final Demand Notice of 9th October
2022 by the Respondent as illegal, erroneous, baseless, arbitrary and void.
ii. An ORDER of
the Honourable Tribunal vacating the assessment and demand of One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-One
Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy-Six Naira (₦1,131,999,976.00) made in the
Demand letter titled ‘Administrative
Assessment for 2017-2020’ of 25th March 2022 and Final Demand Notice
of 9th October 2022 by the Respondent in it’s entirety.
iii. An ORDER of
the Honourable Tribunal restraining the Respondent, it’s officers, agents,
delegates or privies from further demanding any Pay-As-You-Earn [PAYE] Tax for
the period of 2017-2020 from the Appellant and from destraining the Appellant’s
goods and chattels.
iv. The cost of this action at Ten Million Naira Only [₦10.000.000]
v. And further
Orders the Tribunal may deem fit to make in the circumstances.
Consequently, the 1st Respondent
on its own part filed its Respondent’s Reply Acknowledging receipt of the
Notice of Appeal and indicated its intention to contest the Appeal dated and
filed on 10/02/2023 on the grounds stated below:
GROUND ONE:
By section 41 and 54 (1) of the Personal
Income Tax Act, 2011 (as amended) a taxable person for each year of assessment, shall without notice of demand file a return
of income in the prescribed form and containing the prescribed information with the relevant
tax authority of the state in
which the taxable person is deemed to be resident.
PARTICULARS
1. The
Appellant within the years of 2017 – 2020 deployed more than Sixty (60)
personnel to carry out Technical Service Contracts at Agbami in Southern Ijaw
Local Government Area of Bayelsa State within the territory of Bayelsa State.
2. The
Appellant to effectively carry out its work activities at Agbami engaged the
services of the 2nd – 20th Respondent/sub-contractors who
also in line with their contracts of service deployed more than Sixty (60) man
power personnel but failed, refused
and/or neglected the file and pay its Pay-As-You-Earn taxes of its staff (whose
principal place of residence and/or operations are in Bayelsa State) and
Bayelsa State infrastructural Maintenance Levy (BIM).
3. Consequent
upon such failure, an assessment of ₦1,139,999,976.00
(One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine
Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Naira) only being unremitted taxes
(PAYE) inclusive of penalties and interest for the years of 2017, 2018, 2019
and 2020 is outstanding and has become a debt owned by the Appellant to the
Bayelsa State Government.
4. The 1st
Respondent via a letter dated 13th October, 2021 notified the Appellant of a tax audit exercise for
the years of 2017 – 2020 which was to be carried out on the 23/11/2021.
5. The Personal
Income Tax Act allows a relevant tax authority to apply best of judgment
assessment where a tax payer or taxable person fails to file returns or
withholds information requested by a relevant tax authority.
6. The
assessment was based on industry standard in terms of number of personnel
deployed and gross averages for land drilling.
GROUND TWO
Section 58 of the Personal Income Tax Act
2011 (as amended) allows a taxpayer or taxable person, who is in dispute of an
assessment to apply to the relevant tax authority by notice of Objection in
writing to review and to revise the said
assessment and the said notice shall state precisely the grounds of the
objection to the assessment within thirty days from the date of assessment.
PARTICULARS
1. The 1st
Respondent sent another demand notice dated 9th October, 2022 to the
Appellant stating that the demand made is ‘’Final and Conclusive’’.
2. The
Respondent compiled with the powers given to it by the Personal Income Tax Act,
and made its intention known to the Appellant through its letter dated 30th
May, 2019.
THE
RESPONDENT, therefore urges the Tribunal to dismiss the Appeal in its
entirety and uphold the tax assessments set out in the letter of 30th
May 2019 declaring the demand as final and conclusive.
ALTERNATIVELY, the Respondent prays this Honourable Tribunal
for:
(1)
A DECLARATION OF THIS HONOURABLE
TRIBUNAL, that by virtue
of the Personal Income Tax Act, 2011 (as
amended) and other relevant extant laws, the Respondent is the relevant tax
authority, and hence entitled to impose and collect all the Pay-As-You-Earn
(PAYE) Taxes from the Appellant’s employees and/or the 2nd to the 25th
Respondent as well as for the Bayelsa
State Infrastructural Maintenance Levy (BIM), for the works activities of the
Appellant within the Agbami Fields.
(2)
AN ORDER
COMPELLING, the Appellant to furnish the 1st Respondent with documents showing it personnel
deployed to work at Agbami, their Pay roll schedule report, Technical Service
contract of engagement at Agbami as well as Timesheets and individual contracts
for the said personnel.
Trial in this matter commenced on TUESDAY 18TH APRIL 2023 where the Appellant called its witnesses: Sunday
Olabode (AW1), Fijo Okwara (AW2), and Clara Akinmadelo (AW3). Sunday Olabode
(AW1) adopted his Witness Statement on Oath dated the 15th day of
December, 2022 and the 21st day of March, 2023 and tendered Fifteen
(15) Exhibits (Exhibits PWO 1 – PWO 15). Fijo Okwara (AW2) adopted his Witness
Statement on Oath dated the 21st day of March, 2023 and tendered
Three (3) Exhibits (Exhibits PWO 16 – PWO
18). Clara Akinmadelo (AW3) adopted her Witness Statement on Oath dated the 21st
day of March, 2023. All the witnesses were cross–examined and duly discharged.
The Appellant closed its case on the 18th day of July, 2023 and the
matter was adjourned to the 23rd day of August, 2023 for Defense.
The Respondent opened its defence on Thursday
21St September, 2023 by calling its sole witness, Ransom Parode
Omukoro (RW1) who adopted his Witness Statement on Oath dated the 10th day of February, 2023 and tendered Ten
(10) Exhibits (Exhibits BYS 1- BYS 10). He was cross-examined by the Appellant
counsel and was duly discharged on the same day and the matter was adjourned to
the 17th day of October, 2023 for the adoption of Written Addresses
by the parties. On the said 17th day of October, 2023, Respondent
filed a motion for a Joinder
of other Respondents. Ruling on the motion and the joinder was granted on Wednesday 13th December, 2023. Trial in
this matter eventually came to an end on Tuesday 12th March 2024 and
the matter was adjourned to Wednesday 24th day of April 2024, for
Adoption of Final Written Address. Parties adopted their Final Written Address on
the said day and the matter was later adjourned to Wednesday the 8th
day of May, 2024 for JUDGMENT.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION
In its Final Written Address, the Appellant
Counsel, Sivbone Edu Esq raised a sole issue with two (2) sub issues for
determination to wit:
‘‘Whether the assessment and demand of ₦1,139,999,976.00 (One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Million,
Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Naira) as
PAYE for the period of 2017 – 2020
made in the Demand Letter titled ‘Administrative Assessment for 2017 – 2020’
of 25th March 2022 and Final Demand Notice
of 9th October 2022 by the Respondent is
illegal, erroneous, without basis, arbitrary, void AND liable to be vacated by
this Honourable Tribunal?
Sub
Issues:
(a)
Was A
Residency & Synergetic TaxPayer/Tax Authority Relationship Between The
Appellant and The Respondent Established?
(b) Did The Respondent comply with The Respondent Provisions or the
Personal Income Tax Act, 2011 before
issuing best of judgment Assessment in the sum of
₦1,139,999,976.00
(One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine
Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Naira) for the period of 2017 – 2020 of Personal Income Tax, on the
Appellant?
On its own
part, the 1st Respondent
through its lead Counsel, I. M. Beinbein Esq, formulated two (2) issues for
determination in his Final Written Address as follows:
1.
Whether from the
facts and circumstances of the case the Appellant has discharged the
burden of proof through credible evidence to be entitled to judgement.
2. Whether the Appellant from the totality of the evidence (both oral
and documentary) has come to equity with clean hands.
After listening to the totality of the
evidence adduced by the parties, we are of the view that only one issue calls
for determination:
Whether the Appellant has proved its case as required by law to be
entitled to judgment and the reliefs sought from this Tribunal.
It is the Appellant case that On the 19th
of April 2022, the Appellant for the first time received from the 1st
Respondent through Red Star Express Courier Services Waybill – Exhibit PWO 1/Exhibit BYS 3, a demand
Letter titled ‘Administrative Assessment for 2017 – 2020’ and dated 25th
March 2022 with a tax liabilities of ₦1,139,999,976.00
(One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine
Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Naira only) for the period of 2017 – 2020 and demanded same from the
Appellant as Pay-As-You-Earn (PAYE) Tax payable by the Appellant for Sixty (60) unnamed and unidentified purported staff of the
Appellant. That the 1st
Respondent in their Demand Letter, that is Exhibit
PWO 1 referred to another Letter dated 24th November, 2021
titled ‘Notification of Tax Audit Exercise 2017 – 2020 which it claimed was
sent to the Appellant. The Appellant in response to the Demand Letter sent a
Letter to the 1st Respondent dated 22nd April, 2022 where
it stated that it never received the letter of 24th November, 2021
inviting the Appellant for a Tax Audit Exercise by the Respondent. The 1st
Respondent in its reply to Appellant’s Notice of Appeal dated 10th
February 2023 frontloaded another different Letter dated 13th
October, 2010 titled ‘Notification of Tax Audit Exercise 2017 – 2020’ different
from that of 24th November, 2021. The 1st Respondent in
its processes never frontloaded the Letter dated 24th November, 2021
titled ‘Notification of Tax Audit Exercise 2017 – 2020. That on the 21st
of November, 2022, the Appellant received from the 1st Respondent
through Red Star Express Courier Service Waybill – Exhibit PWO 18 a second Letter titled ‘’Final Demand Letter
Notice’’ and dated 9th October 2022. The said Letter referred to
another Letter titled ‘Notice of Refusal to Amend’ dated 1st August, 2022 which the Appellant
emphasized in its Letter
dated 23rd November 2022, sent by
its Solicitors (Edu & Co (Solicitors), that it never received such letter
from the 1st Respondent.
On the part of 1st Respondent,
they alleged that the Appellant within the years of 2017 – 2020 carried out
business activities in the 1st Respondent territory but refused to
file returns and pay its taxes. That the Appellant deployed more than Sixty
(60) personnel to carry out Technical Service
Contracts at Agbami in Southern Ijaw Local Government Area of Bayelsa State within the territory of
Bayelsa State. That the Appellant in carrying out its work activities at Agbami
engaged the services of the 2nd – 20th Respondent/sub-contractors
who also in line with their contracts of service deployed more than Sixty (60)
man power personnel but failed, refused and/or neglected to file and pay its
Pay-As-You-Earn taxes of its staff (whose principal place of residence and/or
operations are in Bayelsa State) and Bayelsa State infrastructural Maintenance
Levy (BIM). That the 1st Respondent via a letter dated 13th
October, 2021 notified the Appellant of a tax audit exercise for the years of
2017 – 2020 which was to be carried
out on the 23/11/2021 which the Appellant failed to respond to. Consequent upon such failure, Exhibit BYS 3 dated 25th March, 2022
- an
Administration Assessment of N1,139,999,976.00
(One Billion, One Hundred and Thirty-Nine Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety Nine
Thousand, Nine Hundred and Seventy Six Naira only) being unremitted taxes
(PAYE) inclusive of penalties and interest for the years of 2017, 2018, 2019
and 2020 was raised and served on the Appellant.
Appellant argued that it does not have any
office in Bayelsa State or any other State in Nigeria apart from its Lagos Office;
neither does it have a
staff strength of Sixty (60) nor has it ever had any of its Staff resident
in Bayelsa State and as such, the Appellant has always paid the PAYE Taxes and
all other taxes to the Lagos State Inland Revenue Services. That the only contracts the Appellant
performed regarding a project in Bayelsa State where a Personnel – Olanrewaju
Ajao was used was a Consultancy Agreement between the Appellant and Nigerian Content Development Monitoring Board
(NCDMB) dated 26th of February 2013 (Exhibit PWO 11) and Architect
Okunola Odusote was assigned to the project
as Team Lead. See extract of cross examination of AW1:
RC: It is true that the Appellant carried out
work activities in Bayelsa State precisely at NCDMB (Nigeria Content
Development and Monitoring Board) premises that is correct?
AW1: It’s not correct,
we have a contract with NCDMB but that contract
is for Architectural drawing and project management. However, we
visited the premises of NCDMB for the purpose of site investigation so that the Architectural drawings for the
building can be done.
On the Agbami project, Appellant admitted to
have a business presence and contract in Agbami FPSO but that such Contracts
were being managed at the Appellant’s Office in Lagos State. See extract of
cross examination
RC:: In respect of Agbami, the Appellant entered
into subcontract with Vendor e.t.c. that is correct?
AW1: Yes, it is correct.
RC:: This vendor deployed the services of man
power to carry out work activities at Agbami
that is correct?
AW1: Yes, that is correct.
RC::These personnel or man power that was
deployed by the subcontractor they are more than 50 that is correct?
AW1: Yes, the aggregate of the personnel was more than 50.
RC:: The Appellant also deployed project
supervisors to manage the man power supply by the subcontractor at Agbami that
is correct sir?
AW1: That is not correct; the Appellant did not
deploy any project supervisor for the purpose of executing the contract. The
project supervisor or supervisor if any he is or her employee of the
subcontractor and not that of the Appellant.
The 1st Respondent also alledged
that at worst, it is aware of one Adeniyi Lateef Akani and Tadese Kazeem, who
are employees of the Appellant that worked in the Agbani Projects.
The Appellant contended those Employees are
its former staff. That even if the former employees (Adeniyi Lateef Akanni and
Tadese Kazeem) were still employees of the Appellant Company, the roles they
played in the Agbami FPSO Project
does not entail them to be physically resident at Agbami FPSO in order for them
to have done their jobs. The job role of Tadese Kazeem, an
Architectural Engineer of the
company did not entail him to have been physically resident at Agbami FPSO as the
drawings were done in the Appellant’s only office in Lagos State. Likewise, Adeniyi Lateef
Akanni was the Business Development/Bids and Tender Supervisor which also does
not entail him to have been physically resident at Agbani FPSO as contracts
were managed at the Appellant Office in Lagos.
From the above, it is clear the Appellant had
a business presence in the Respondent territory but whether its workers qualify
as itinerary workers for the payment of the taxes demanded by the 1st
Respondent is the main issue that needed the determination by this Tribunal.
Once a taxable person, individual or Company operates in the territory of a Tax
Authority, that Tax Authority has become a Relevant Tax Authority
notwithstanding whether or not that individual or business will eventually be
liable to tax.
Section 46 and 47 of PITA 2011 (as amended) gives Power to the Relevant Authority to call for documents and returns.
Specifically, Section 46 provides thus:
The relevant
authority may give notice in writing to a person
when and as often as it
thinks necessary requiring him to deliver within a reasonable time limited by such
notice fuller or further returns
respecting any matter
as to which a return is required or prescribed by this Act.
The 1st Respondent claimed that it
notified the Appellant of a Tax Audit Exercise for 2017- 2020 through Exhibit
BYS 2 and called for documents. Appellant denied this allegation and stated
that it did not receive any letter of such from the Respondent. And Exhibit BYS
2 did not have any sign of acknowledgment of receipt of the letter by the
Appellant. This we can only say that
the letter didn’t get to the Appellant or the Appellant didn’t
receive the letter or maybe the
letter was not sent at all. All the same, the fact remains that there is no
proof that the Appellant actually received that notification letter. It then
follows that the Appellant was not aware of any communication requesting for documents
before Exhibit BYS 3, the Demand Notice for the Administrative Assessment was
served. One of the primary reasons for sending prior notification to the tax
payer before the commencement of an Audit, is to give the tax payer/company
time to prepare and get the necessary documents for the Audit. Once a
Demand/Assessment Notice is served on the Tax payer, the next line of action
for the taxpayer is to reply with a
valid objection within the statutory period of 30 days as provided in Section
58 of PITA 2011 (as amended). This is what the Appellant did in Exhibit BYS 4. Therefore, it is
the view of the
Tribunal that the Respondent
allegation that it called for
documents and the Appellant refused to oblige and submit documents might not be tenable in this matter. Section 54
empowers the relevant authority to embark on Best of Judgement. However, in the
case of Commissioner of Revenue v Attah M.O (High Court of the North Central
State, Kaduna Hasan, Ag S.P.J) ALL NTC Vol1, Page 280 where the court emphasized that the Law presupposes
that a person has been asked to deliver a return within a certain time before
he is assessed, if he has been asked, he may be assessed after that time has
elapsed even though he has not delivered the return. The request to render returns
is a condition precedent to an assessment and the waiting time for it to elapse
is also a condition precedent
to an Assessment; both conditions are intended to protect
the tax payer by according him an opportunity of stating his income and
other matters; and an assessment which does not fulfil either of those
conditions is null and void. It is our opinion that the above conditions were
not fulfilled in this matter before Exhibit BYS was issued. The Best of
Judgement Assessment cannot be said to have been properly executed. This goes
to the root of the matter and thus in our opinion the said Assessment in
Exhibit BYS 3 cannot be regarded as a valid Assessment.
The 1st Respondent also contended
that it is aware that atleast two of
Appellant staff namely Adeniyi Lateef Akanni and Tadese Kazeem worked in the
Agbami project. Appellant admitted that these Employees were its former staff
but are no longer in the Employment of the Appellant. However,
Appellant were not able to provide
evidence of the payment of their
taxes to the Lagos State Internal Revenue Service as was done for other
Employees of the Appellant in Exhibits PWO 7 to PWO 10. It is not in doubt that even if the said Employees
were former staff of the Appellant, they must
pay their PAYE taxes to the Relevant Tax Authority and if there is no evidence
of such payment of taxes, then it can as well be assumed that those staff have
not paid their taxes.
Similarly, the Appellant did not also deem it
necessary to furnish the Respondent with some essential documents such as time
Sheets, Audited Financial Statement etc which are necessary for the
resolution of this matter at the point which Exhibit BYS 3 was served on it even if the Appellant did not receive
Exhibit BYS 2. It did not also deem it necessary to furnish these documents to
the Tribunal as revealed during cross examination of AW1 as show in the extract
below:
RC: Among the documents that you
frontloaded as Exhibits
before this Tribunal Time Sheet are not among them, that is correct?
AW1: I am not aware that the Time Sheet are not there and if that is the case is an over sight.
RC: Please take a
look at all your Exhibits
and show the Tribunal where the Time Sheet
is?
Tribunal: He has already answered
it.
It is trite
law that he who is in possession of an evidence but refused to present it, it
is deemed that his failure to produce same is an intended act because the
evidence if so produced, will be adverse to its case. See the case of OGUNNIYI
V HON. MINISTER OF FCT & ANOR (2014) LPELR-23164(CA)
Furthermore,
It is also trite law that he who comes to equity must come with clean hands.
See the supreme court case of ADEJUMO VS
AYANTEGBE (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt 110) 417 @ 422-423 Ratio 11.
In the instant
case, it is our opinion
that both parties did not come to equity with clean hands. There is a dearth of information
created by parties due to their
inability to engage each other
properly before approaching the Tribunal.
Consequently, both Appellant and Respondent reliefs
are granted in parts as follows:
Appellant reliefs (i) and (ii) granted.
Appellant reliefs
(iii) to (vi) not granted
Respondent alternative prayers (i) and (2) also granted
Tribunal hereby orders as follows:
(1) That the (N1,131,999,976.00) One Billion, Hundred
and Thirty-one Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine thousand, Nine hundred and
Seventy-Six Naira only) as PAYE for the period of 2017-2020,2021 made in the demand letter
titled ‘Administrative
Assessment
for 2017-2020’ of 25th March 2022 and final Demand Notice of 9th October 2022 by the Respondent is null and
void.
(2) The
assessment and demand of (N1,131,999,976.00)
One Billion, Hundred and Thirty-one
Million, Nine Hundred and Ninety-nine thousand, Nine hundred and Seventy-Six
Naira only) made in the Demand letter titled ‘Administrative Assessment for
2017-2020’ of 25th March 2022 and Final Demand Notice of 9th
October 2022 by the Respondent is hereby vacated.
(3) That
Appellant should furnish the 1st Respondent with Pay-As-You-Earn
(PAYE) Taxes from the Appellant’s employees and/or the 2nd to the 25th
Respondent and Bayelsa State Infrastructural Maintenance Levy (BIM), for the works activities of the Appellant
within the Agbami Fields.
(4)That the Appellant should furnish
the 1st Respondent with documents showing it personnel deployed to
work at Agbami, their Pay roll schedule report, Technical Service contract of
engagement at Agbami as well as Timesheets and individual contracts for the said personnel.
This is the unanimous judgement of the Tribunal
Dated this 8th
day of May 2024.
Signed:
Hon (Prof.) Obehi Adetokunbo Odiase-Alegimenlen Chairman
Hon. (Dr.)
Ala-Peters David Hon. (Mrs.)
Hilda Ofure Ozoh Member Member
|
Hon. (Barr.)
Ajoku Vitalis Friday |
Hon. |
(Prof.) |
Olatunde Julius |
Otusanya |
|
Member |
|
|
Member |
|
APPEARANCE:
Sivbone Edu ESQ Appellant
I. M. BeinBein and B. E. Cocodia Respondent