Mrs. Susan Ogbu has filed a legal suit against Promasidor Nigeria Ltd and its affiliates following the tragic death of her 26-year-old son, Patrick Ogbu, at one of the company’s facilities. The lawsuit, lodged at the National Industrial Court in Lagos, seeks $250,000 (approximately N300 million) in compensation for alleged negligence, alongside N150 million in general damages.
The legal action also names Promasidor Holdings, the parent company; Dapo Omolade Empowerment Initiatives; Hybrid Group Limited; Hybrid HSE Limited; Bohlar Integrated Services; and the Minister of Labour and Employment as co-defendants.
Represented by legal counsel David Kupolati, Mrs. Ogbu also requests a 21% annual interest on the judgment amount until full payment is made, along with N5 million in legal expenses.
According to court filings, Patrick was enrolled in a Health, Safety and Environment (HSE) trainee program under the coordination of Dapo Omolade and Hybrid Group, beginning April 1, 2024. The program, which offered a N65,000 monthly stipend, reportedly placed him at Promasidor’s Lagos factory through a partnership with Bohlar Integrated Services.
On August 9, 2024, only hours into his first day at the site, Patrick fell from a rooftop into a warehouse and died. His mother alleges that unsafe working conditions and a lack of proper safety oversight contributed to the fatal incident.
She is also urging the court to direct the Minister of Labour and Employment to investigate the operations of the DOME initiative and its role in deploying trainees. Additionally, she’s calling for a full health and safety audit of Promasidor facilities in Lagos and Ogun states, along with a review of the company’s labour practices.
In response, the defendants, through their lawyer Azeez Alaka, denied liability. They asserted that Dapo Omolade operates independently of Hybrid Group and that the DOME initiative is a bona fide training platform aimed at equipping Nigerian youth with practical HSE experience.
The defence further claimed that Patrick breached internal safety regulations by accessing a rooftop without the required authorization, despite being responsible for enforcing safety protocols. They argued that his actions, not negligence by the companies, led to the accident.
They also rejected allegations of exploitation, insisting the initiative was created to support youth development and provide structured training—not serve as a source of cheap labour.
Leave a Reply