The lawsuit, filed at the National Industrial Court in Lagos, seeks $250,000 in compensation (approximately N300 million), along with an additional N150 million in general damages.
Also named in the suit are Promasidor’s parent company, Promasidor Holdings; Dapo Omolade Empowerment Initiatives; Hybrid Group Limited; Hybrid HSE Limited; Bohlar Integrated Services; and the Minister of Labour and Employment.
The case, marked NICN/LA/361/2024, was brought by Mrs. Ogbu through her lawyer, David Kupolati. She is demanding damages for the wrongful death of her son, as well as a 21 percent interest on the judgment sum until fully paid and N5 million in legal fees.
Patrick Ogbu had joined a Health, Safety, and Environment (HSE) trainee scheme operated by Dapo Omolade and Hybrid Group on April 1, 2024, after receiving an offer letter in early March.
The program, which promised technical training and a N65,000 monthly stipend, was reportedly tied to a deployment arrangement with Promasidor through Bohlar Integrated Services.
On August 9, 2024, just hours into his assignment at the Promasidor facility, Patrick tragically fell from the rooftop into a warehouse and died.
According to the lawsuit, Mrs. Ogbu blames the incident on “gross negligence and hazardous practices” by the companies involved.
She further called for an investigation by the Minister of Labour and Employment into the operations of the DOME initiative and its affiliates, along with a full health and safety audit of Promasidor factories in Lagos and Ogun states.
In response, the defendants, represented by Azeez Alaka, denied any wrongdoing. They maintained that Dapo Omolade operates independently of Hybrid Group and that the DOME initiative is a legitimate program offering young Nigerians real-world experience in HSE practices.
The defence argued that Patrick violated safety protocols by accessing a rooftop without proper authorization or training. They stated that he was tasked with enforcing a “No Permit, No Work” rule and failed to do so, which led to the fatal incident.
The companies also dismissed claims of exploitation, insisting the training initiative was structured to provide value, not cheap labour.
