Download PDF
JUDGMENT The Claimant instituted this suit on 13th February 2018 vide a Complaint wherein the Claimant sought the following reliefs against the Defendants: i. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendants is wrongful, unlawful, illegal and was done in utmost bad faith. ii. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendants is in breach of the terms and conditions of the contract of employment as contained in the Defendants' offer of employment letter dated September 26, 2017. iii. A Declaration that the offer of new terms and conditions of employment by the Defendants to the Claimant as contained in the Employment Agreement dated November 24, 2017 is in total breach of the already existing contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendants and therefore wrongful, illegal, unlawful and done in bad faith. iv. An Order of this Honourable Court awarding the sum of USD500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) or its Naira equivalent of N180,000,000 (One Hundred and Eighty Million Naira) only to the Claimant and against the Defendants, jointly and severally as damages for breach of contract. v. An Order of this Honourable Court awarding the sum of USD300,000 (Three Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) or its Naira equivalent of N108,000,000. 00 (One Hundred and Eight Million Naira) only to the Claimant and against the Defendants, jointly and severally as damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendants. vi. An Order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendants, jointly and severally to reimburse the Claimant all the reimbursable expenses the Claimant incurred in the performance of his duties which are as follows: a. The sum of USD200 (Two Hundred United States Dollars) representing the Claimant's reimbursable expenses on mobile telephone airtime covering the month of November and December. b. The sum of KSH320,000 (Three Hundred and Twenty Thousand Kenya Shillings) representing the Claimant's Kenya outstation car hire reimbursable expenses. c. The sum of KHS474,30A (Four Hundred and Seventy-Four Thousand, Three Hundred Kenya Shillings) representing the Claimant's Kenya outstation accommodation reimbursable expenses. d. The sum of N144,000.00 (One Hundred and Forty-Four Thousand Naira) only representing the Claimant's Lagos outstation accommodation reimbursable expenses. e. The sum of N109,000. 00 (One Hundred and Nine Thousand Naira) only representing the Claimant's Lagos outstation car hire reimbursable expenses vii. An Order of this court awarding the sum of USD500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand United States Dollars) or its naira equivalent of N180,000,000. 00 (One Hundred and Eighty Million Naira) only to the Claimant and against the Defendants, jointly and severally as general damages for hardship suffered by the Claimant and his dependents as a result of the breach of contract and wrongful termination of his contract of employment by the Defendants. viii. Cost of litigation in the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) only, which the Claimant borrowed, with interest. A memorandum of appearance was filed for the 1st and 2nd defendants but only the 1st defendant filed a statement of defence in which it included a counterclaim against the Claimant. The 2nd Defendant did not file a defence to the Claimant’s claim. However, in paragraph 1 of the 1st Defendant’s statement of defence, objection was raised to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this suit against the 2nd Defendant. I will consider this objection later in this judgment. The 1st Defendant’s counter claim against the Claimant is for the following reliefs: i. A Declaration that the Claimant/Defendant suit is malicious, vexatious and an abuse of court process. ii. An Order directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay the Defendant/Counter Claimant the sum of N20,000 spent on Car Hire without authorization. iii. An Order directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay the Defendant/Counter Claimant the sum of N26,000 being the unauthorized amount above the Company's Policy spent for two nights at Eko Hotels and Suites. iv. An Order directing the Claimant/Defendant to refund to the Defendant/Counter Claimant the sum of N217,000 unaccounted for from sum of N624, 000 Advance Payment. v. An Order directing the Claimant/Defendant to pay the Defendant/Counter Claimant the sum of N3,000,000 (Three Million Naira) as exemplary damages. Pleadings were duly exchanged, and trial commenced on the 11th day of June 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. The 1st Defendant called 2 witnesses in defence of the Claimant’s claims and in proof of the counter claim. One Chike Uchendu testified as DW1 while Hamza Usman testified as DW2.Hearing ended on the 4th day of December 2018 and parties were ordered to file final addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court. Addresses were filed and subsequently regularized and were duly adopted on the 20th day of May 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE In proving his claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness in his case. The case of the Claimant, as disclosed in his statement of facts and in his evidence is that he is a Nigerian citizen resident in Nairobi, Kenya. The 1st Defendant is a subsidiary of the 2nd Defendant. Both Defendants are foreign companies but operate in Nigeria. On 26th September 2017, the 1st Defendant offered him one-year employment contract as Private Sector Business Development Manager, West Africa. The Claimant said he was posted to the 1st Defendant’s Nigeria office at Abuja. The contract commenced on 9th October 2017 and was to terminate on 8th October 2018. Before the employment, it was agreed orally between him and the Defendants that his salary and other entitlements would be paid to him in United States Dollars [USD]. Terms of the contract include the following: He may be required to perform his duties in other locations outside Nigeria; his monthly salary was 6,500USD; he will be provided with a suitable vehicle for carrying out his duties; he will be paid monthly accommodation sum of 1,500USD; he was under probation for 6 months and that the terms contained in the employment letter constitute all the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment. The Claimant said he accepted the offer and resigned his employment in Kenya to commence work with the Defendants. He relocated to Nigeria without his family and rented a 2-bedroom flat at No. 45, Mamman Nasir Street, Asokoro, Abuja on a yearly rent of 19,500 USD which he paid and moved into the flat. In the course of his employment, he performed outstation duties in Lagos and Kenya. Within 2 months into the employment, the Defendants informed him that his salaries will be paid in Nigerian currency. The Claimant said he refused and made the Defendants understand that payment of his salaries and entitlements in currency other than as agreed is a breach of contract. He also reminded the Defendants about the fact that he accepted the agreed mode of payment because his family live in a foreign country. He was surprised to receive another employment letter dated 24th November 2017 whose terms were different from the existing contract. The terms of the new employment were not favourable to him that was why he refused to sign it. His refusal to sign the new contract caused the Defendants to threaten and victimise him. Payment of his salaries was delayed while he was not reimbursed for expenses incurred in the course of his duties. The Claimant said he was also surprised to receive from the Defendants a letter of termination of his employment dated 8th December 2017. The reason stated in the letter for the termination of his employment is that the Defendants cannot legally pay a Nigerian national employed by the Defendant in foreign currency. The Claimant stated that the termination of his employment was wrongful, unlawful and was done in bad faith. His employment was terminated because he refused to sign a new employment agreement the reason given for so doing are in breach of the existing contract of employment. The Claimant further said he and his family members are suffering untold hardship as a result of termination of his employment. He lost his previous employment in Kenya and his employment with the Defendants. He is now borrowing to take care of himself and his family. He has returned to his family in Kenya and had to abandon his rented apartment in Abuja. The Claimant said he lost the rent he paid for the flat even though the Defendant paid the sum of 4,500USD to him out of the sum he paid for the flat. According to the Claimant, he incurred the following reimbursable costs while in the employment: the sum of 200USD on mobile telephone air time between November and December; Kenya outstation car hire amounting to 320,000 Kenya Shillings; Kenya outstation accommodation amounting to the sum of 474,300 Kenya Shillings; Lagos outstation accommodation amounting to the sum of N144,000; and Lagos outstation car hire amounting to the sum of N109,000. He also said he briefed a law firm to seek redress in court and his general cost of bringing this action is the sum of N10,000,000 which he borrowed with interest. DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM The Defendant’s first witness [DW1] is Chike Uchendu, a Deputy Regional Director, Africa, of the 1st Defendant. The 2nd witness [DW2] is Hamza Usman, Country Manager of the 1st Defendant. The evidence given by these witnesses are similar and they are along the line of the averments in the statement of defence. The Defendant’s case is that the Claimant was offered employment as Business Development Manager [private sector], from 26th September 2017 to 8th October 2018 on full time basis. The position for which the Claimant was employed was domiciled in Abuja, Nigeria. The Claimant was placed on 6 months’ probation. The Claimant and 1st Defendant agreed to be governed by the laws of Nigeria. The Claimant was offered net monthly salary of 6,500USD and 1,500USD for his accommodation. The 1st Defendant also agreed to provide the Claimant a suitable vehicle for the performance of his duties. In November 2017, the Defendant discovered that the clause in the employment contract to pay the Claimant in USD while working in Nigeria was illegal because the legal tender in Nigeria is the Naira and it is an offence for any person to refuse to accept Naira as a means of payment. This position was conveyed to the Claimant, but he complained that his family was in Kenya and he would need foreign exchange for their upkeep. The Defendant considered the plight of the Claimant with regard to limitations of payment of his salaries in Dollars while working in Nigeria and offered him another employment denominated in Kenyan shillings on 24/11/2017 and another one with ECCL. The Claimant rejected the 2 offers and his insistence to be paid his salaries in Dollars compelled the 1st Defendant to give him 1 months’ notice of termination of his employment on 8th December 2017. The Claimant’s employment was terminated for his refusal to accept payment of his salaries and other emoluments in Naira denomination. The Claimant did not rent a 2-bedroom flat at No. 45, Mamman Nasir Street, Asokoro, Abuja for the sum of 19,500USD for a period of one year. The 1st Defendant discovered this fact during an investigation conducted on the property. Also, the Claimant did not rent apartment because he was in the 1st Defendant’s guest house at Jabi throughout the period but he presented a fictitious evidence to claim 3 months accommodation from the Defendant in the sum of $4,500. The Claimant was given an advance sum of N624,000 to carry out his duties outside Abuja from 8th December 2017. The Claimant has not justified the advance payment. The 1st Defendant admits that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of $200 for reimbursable expenses on mobile telephone airtime covering the months of November and December. It is the 1st Defendant’s policy that approval must be sought and obtained from the supervisor before expenses are incurred in the name of the 1st Defendant. The Claimant is not entitled to be reimbursed the sum of KSH320,000 for Kenya outstation car hire expenses and the sum KHS474,300 for Kenya outstation accommodation expenses because he did not obtain approval from his supervisor for these expenses. The Claimant is also not entitled to the sum of N144,000 for Lagos outstation accommodation expenses from 24/12/2017 to 27/12/2017 because he collected the sum of N624,000 which has not been justified. The Claimant had approval to stay in Lagos from 20/12/2017 to 22/12/2017 but he spent 24th, 25th, 26th and 27th December 2017 at Eko Hotel without approval from the 1st Defendant. The Claimant is not entitled to the sum N109,000 for Lagos outstation car hire expenses because the expenses was part of the N624,000 collected by him. The Claimant’s contract was terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract and Nigerian labour laws. The Claimant has not accounted for the sum of N263,000 out of the N624,000 given to him to carry out his duties outside Abuja. It is a policy of the 1st Defendant that every member of staff is entitled to N36,000 per night for hotel accommodation in Lagos or a night at a hotel where the 1st Defendant has an arrangement for its staff. The Claimant took an unauthorised car hire at the rate of N20,000 on 23/12/2017 when he was scheduled to have travelled to Nairobi, Kenya on 22/12/2017. The 1st Defendant is entitled to a refund of N263,000 from the Claimant out of the advance payment of N624,000 given to the Claimant. The refund includes N20,000 used for car hire when the Claimant ought to be in Kenya and N26,000 excess amount spent for hotel accommodation from 5th to 6th December 2017. DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM The Claimant filed a defence to the counter claim, and he adduced additional evidence in respect of his averments in defence of the counter claim. He said he accounted for the advance payment in the sum of N624,000 given to him by the 1st Defendant to carry out his duties outside Abuja. He spent the sum judiciously and he made retirements by submissions of all receipts to the 1st Defendant and he handed over to the 1st Defendant at Nairobi. He was cleared by the 1st Defendant of any outstanding refund after the termination of his employment. He applied for the outstation accommodation and car hire and they were approved by his supervisor in the person of Chike Uchendu through email correspondences of 6/11/2017, 18/12/2017, 19/12/2017 and 4/1/2018. He had approval from the 1st Defendant to travel to Nairobi in the course of his duties and on behalf of the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant paid for the air ticket to and from Nairobi and also approved his accommodation, local transport and per diem for the Nairobi trip. The request for approval for the Nairobi trip and the approval were through his supervisor, Chike Uchendu and they communicated via email. He is entitled to be reimbursed for his expenses for the Lagos and Nairobi assignments. 1ST DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The 1st Defendant in their final written address raised the following issues for determination to wit: 1. Whether the 2nd Defendant falls within the category of juristic personalities that can sue or, be sued. 2. Whether the elimination of the Claimants’ engagement with the 1st Defendant was lawful and in consonance, with the provisions of his contract of employment and other labor laws. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to reimbursable expenses in line with the 1st Defendants Company travel policy. 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought having regard to the totality of evidence adduced at the trial of this suit 5. Whether the Defendant/Counterclaimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in the counterclaim On Issue One, learned Counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that the 2nd Defendant is not a juristic personality under the law. Counsel placed reliance on the provision of law which states that no action can be commenced by or against any party other than a natural person or persons granted such rights in accordance with statutes expressly or impliedly or by a common law either. See ADMININISTRATORS/EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF GENERAL SANNI ABACHA vs. EKE-SPIFF (2009) 7 NWLR (Pt 139) Pg. 103. Counsel urged the court to strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant in this suit because it is a non-juristic personality and therefore not known to law. On Issue Two, Counsel urged the court to hold that the termination of the Claimants employment was lawful, having regard to the facts and evidence before the court. Counsel argued that an employee who complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated must discharge the burden of proving his case and the Claimant failed to establish at the trial of this suit. Counsel argued that in an action for wrongful termination of appointment, the Claimant must plead and prove not only the appointment but also the terms and conditions of such appointment for it to constitute sufficient foundation of the action. See KABEL METAL NIGERIA LIMITED vs. GABRIEL ATIVIE (2001) FWLR (Pt. 66) 662 at 675. On Issue Three, learned counsel for the Defendants submitted that the Claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving that he obtained the approval of the Director of Corporate Affairs before taking a decision not to patronize the Company's domestic arrangement of Kenya Division before making a contrary, arrangement outside his mandate without the pre-approval of the Director Corporate Affairs. Counsel urged the court to find that the Claimant’s pleadings do not support the reliefs sought and ought to be struck out by the court this is because these reliefs are inconclusive. Counsel further argued that there was no foundation in the Claimants pleading as to the dates of travel. On Issue Four, counsel reiterated on his arguments on the preceding issues for determination and urged the court to hold that the failure of the Claimant to lead the evidence is fatal to his case. On Issue Five, counsel submitted that the Claimant was given the sum of N624, 000 (Six Hundred and Twenty-Four Thousand Naira Only) between the 8th December 2017 and 5th January 2018 as advance payment for business travels. This evidence has remained uncontroverted and counsel urged the court to so hold. Counsel submitted that the failure of the Claimant to justify his spending to the tune of N264,000 out of the sum of N624.000 that was disbursed to him is a clear breach of the company’s policy and Counsel urged the court to so hold. CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS In the Claimant’s final written address, Counsel raised the following issues for determination to wit: a. Whether the 2nd Defendant is a personality capable of being sued. b. Whether the termination of the Claimant's Contract of Employment by the Defendants was wrongful. c. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought in this case. d. Whether the Defendants/Counter Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the 2nd Defendant in this suit is a personality capable of being sued by the Claimant in this case because the 2nd Defendant is the parent company of the 1st Defendant. Counsel submitted that the law does not exclude an artificial person registered in a common law country and who does lawful in business in Nigeria through a subsidiary from having the capacity to sue and be sued where an issue that affects the subsidiary becomes a subject matter of litigation. Counsel further submitted that the 1st Defendant was setup by the 2nd Defendant in Nigeria as its agent for the sole purpose of carrying out its business in Nigeria; hence it is vicariously liable to the actions of the 1st Defendant. According to counsel, the 2nd Defendant, having been registered in a common law country, has a legal personality and exercises the privileges of a body corporate, and has the capacity to sue and be sued in Nigeria. On Issue Two, the Claimant’s counsel answered the question posed by the issue in the negative and submitted that the Defendants had failed to proffer substantiated reasons in their evidence because there is nowhere in the CBN Act where it is illegal to pay a Nigerian national in foreign currency; more so when there is an existing contract between the parties that allowed such payment in US Dollars. It was the submission of learned counsel that the main reason the Defendant terminated the contract of employment was that they wanted to maliciously breach the contract of employment already executed by both parties. Counsel submitted that the Defendants could not have relied on Central Bank of Nigeria Act on payment of the Claimant's salary which was not paid in Nigeria but in Kenya. On Issue Three, it was the Claimant’s Counsel’s submission that the Claimant is entitled to all the reliefs sought in this suit. Counsel submitted that the issuance of Exhibit B to the Claimant while Exhibit A was still subsisting is an implied breach of the subsisting contract of employment and therefore the Claimant is entitled to reliefs numbers iii & iv in this suit. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant is entitled to all the reimbursable expenses he incurred in the performance of his responsibilities while in service. Counsel submitted that the admission made by the DW1 above is a clear proof that the Claimant visited Kenya in official capacity and not to visit his family. According to learned counsel, the Defendant's refusal to reimburse him the expenses was as a result of his refusal to sign Exhibit B. Counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to damages on losses (rent) and injuries he suffered as a result of the wrongful and malicious termination of his contract of employment by the Defendants and urged the court to so hold. On Issue Four, it was the Claimant’s counsel’s submission that the Defendants/Counter Claimants are not entitled to the reliefs sought in their Counter Claim. Counsel argued that the Counter Claimants failed to lead substantial evidence to prove that the Claimant did not account for the N624,000.00 given to him for the Lagos trip. Counsel urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought. 1ST DEFENANT’S REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW In their reply on points of law, learned counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that it is the duty of the court to determine the nature of the contract of employment (Exhibit A) and that Exhibit A clearly shows that the employment of the Claimant is not statutory and that the Claimant enjoys no other rights except the rights contained therein. Counsel argued that in a master and servant employment such as that of the Claimant, the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any or no reason. See UNION BANK PLC vs. SALAUDEEN 2017 LPELR (CA). Counsel emphasized that parties cannot waive the effect of a statutory provision. See CAC v RTCCC (2009) 11 NWLR (Pt 1151). Counsel reiterated the arguments canvassed in the 1st Defendant’s final written address and argued that so long as the employer acts within the terms of the employment, the motive for his actions are irrelevant. See OFIRRISHE vs. NIGERIAN GAS CO LTD 2017 LPELR (SC). Counsel urged the court to hold that the Claimant is not entitled to judgment in this case. Further arguments were proffered by counsel on both sides in their respective addresses. I have considered the entire addresses of the parties, and reference will be made to relevant parts thereof if necessary, in this judgment. COURT’S DECISION While learned counsel for the Defendants formulated 5 issues for determination in this suit, learned counsel for the Claimant raised 4 issues for determination. I have considered these issues formulated by counsels for the parties but in my view, taking into consideration the claims of the parties, the facts of their cases and the issues arising from the submissions in the final written addresses, this suit will be determined by considering the following 3 issues: 1. Whether the 2nd Defendant is a competent party in this suit. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case and entitled to the reliefs sought by him. 3. Whether the 1st Defendant has proved its counter claim and entitled to the reliefs sought. ISSUE 1: In paragraphs 4, 5 and 8 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that the both Defendants are foreign companies which operate in Nigeria and that the 1st Defendant is a subsidiary of the 2nd Defendant. The 1st Defendant did not deny these paragraphs of the statement of facts but in paragraph 1 of its statement of defence, objection was raised to the jurisdiction of this court to entertain this suit against the 2nd Defendant. The grounds of the objection are that the 2nd Defendant is not a juristic personality in Nigeria and non-compliance with Section 36 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. DW2 stated in his evidence that the 2nd Defendant is not a juristic personality in Nigeria. It is for this reason learned counsel for the 1st Defendant prayed this court to strike out the 2nd Defendant from this suit. The 1st Defendant did not dispute its own legal capacity or its capacity to be sued in Nigerian courts. The issue raised concerns only the 2nd Defendant. In his final written address, learned counsel for the 1st Defendant submitted that the 2nd Defendant cannot be accorded legal personality under Nigerian law because it was not registered in Nigeria under the Company and Allied Matters Act nor created by any statute in Nigeria. It is clear to me the complaint of the 1st Defendant is that the 2nd Defendant is not registered in Nigeria or recognised by the laws of Nigeria as a legal personality. The 1st Defendant did not allege that the 2nd Defendant does not exist as a registered entity elsewhere in the globe. From the uncontroverted averments of the Claimant in paragraph 5 of the statement of facts, the 2nd Defendant is a foreign company. It is therefore clear that the 2nd Defendant is a company registered in a foreign country. Now, the contention of the 1st Defendant is that the 2nd Defendant is not a legal person known or registered under the Nigerian laws and cannot sue or be sued in Nigerian courts. The question whether a foreign company can sue or be sued in Nigeria was resolved by the Supreme Court in SAEBY JERNSTOBERI MASKINFABRIC A/S vs. OLAOGUN ENTERPRISES LTD. LER [1999] SC 261/1993 at page 10 Ayoola JSC [as he then was] held as follows: “The question whether the appellant, a company registered in Denmark but not in Nigeria, can sue in Nigeria in its corporate name was answered by the Court of Appeal in the affirmative. On this appeal, it was argued by counsel on behalf of the respondent that even though it may be a legal entity in its country of incorporation, it had no artificial personality in Nigeria since the Companies Act is silent on whether a company such as the appellant would be allowed to sue or not. That submission is misconceived. The principle of law that a foreign corporation, duly created according to the laws of a foreign state recognised by Nigeria, may sue or be sued in its corporate name in our courts is part of the common law. The suggestion that a foreign company duly incorporated outside Nigeria should first be registered in Nigeria under the provisions of the Companies Act 1968 (which was then the applicable statute) dealing with registration of foreign companies, notwithstanding that it does not fall into the category of "foreign company" as defined by that Act, is too preposterous and patently inimical to international trade, to merit any prolonged or serious consideration. It suffices to say that the appellant company which was admitted by the respondent to be a limited liability company with its registered office in Copenhagen properly sued in its corporate name”. The above statement by the apex court clearly settles the contention of the 1st Defendant. I will say no more on this point. I observe however that the Claimant did not have a cause of action against the 2nd Defendant. Other than to say that the 1st Defendant is a subsidiary of the 2nd Defendant, the Claimant did not make any allegation of wrongdoing against the 2nd Defendant which resulted to this suit. It is clear from the averments of the Claimant in the statement of facts and in the evidence adduced by him that the 2nd Defendant did not enter into the contract of employment with the Claimant nor is it a party to the contract which is subject matter of the Claimant’s action. The 2nd Defendant was not the Claimant’s employer and it was not responsible for the termination of the Claimant’s employment. The 1st Defendant was the actor in these instances, and it is responsible for the claims of the Claimant. The claims of the Claimant can be determined without the presence of the 2nd Defendant in this suit. In my view, the 2nd Defendant is not a proper or necessary party to this case. I will strike out the 2nd Defendant from this suit on these grounds and proceed to determine the suit between the Claimant and his employer, the 1st Defendant. Accordingly, the 2nd Defendant is struck out from this suit. The 1st Defendant will henceforth be referred to as the Defendant in this judgment. ISSUE 2: The facts that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as Private Sector Business Development Manager and was posted to work in the Defendant’s Nigeria office in Abuja are not in dispute in this case. The dispute between the parties is with respect to the termination of the employment. The Claimant pleaded his employment letter and set out some of the terms and conditions of the employment stated therein. The Claimant said one of the terms of his employment is that his salaries will be paid in USD but just 2 months into the employment, the Defendant informed him that his salaries will be paid in Nigerian currency. He refused payment of his salaries and entitlements in any other currency other than as agreed. The Defendant offered him another employment whose terms were not favourable to him and he refused this new contract. Then he received a letter dated 8th December 2017 terminating of his employment for the reason that the Defendant cannot legally pay a Nigerian national employed by the Defendant in foreign currency. The Claimant’s grievance is that the termination of his employment is wrongful, and the reason given for terminating his employment constitutes a breach of the terms and conditions of his contract of employment. The Defendant’s explanations of the events leading to the termination of the Claimant’s employment is that, although it was agreed in the contract for the Claimant to be paid his salaries in USD, it was also agreed that the Claimant’s employment will be governed by the laws of Nigeria. In November 2017, the Defendant discovered that the clause in the employment contract to pay the Claimant in USD while working in Nigeria was illegal because the legal tender in Nigeria is the Naira and it is an offence for any person to refuse to accept Naira as a means of payment. This position was conveyed to the Claimant, but he complained that his family was in Kenya and he would need foreign exchange for their upkeep. It was for this reason the Defendant offered him two separate employments one of which he can be paid in Kenyan shillings. The Claimant rejected the 2 offers and his insistence to be paid his salaries in USD compelled the 1st Defendant to terminate his employment by giving him 1 month’s notice of termination of his employment on 8th December 2017. The Defendant averred that the Claimant’s salary was terminated for his refusal to accept payment of his salaries and other emoluments in Naira denomination. It was also averred that the Claimant’s contract was terminated in accordance with the terms of the contract and Nigerian labour laws. The Claimant’s employment is Exhibit A dated 26th September 2017. It contains the terms and conditions of the employment. In paragraph 1 of the letter, the Claimant was offered one-year contract of employment from 9th October 2017 to 8th October 2018 and the position is based in Abuja, Nigeria. The Claimant’s remunerations include the sum of $6,500 as monthly salary and the sum of $1,500 per month for accommodation. The terms of the employment also include the following: the contract is governed by Nigerian laws; the right of either party to terminate the employment by one month’s notice or payment in lieu of notice; the terms and condition in the letter constitute all the terms and conditions of the employment and replaces any prior understanding or agreement between the claimant and the defendant. The claimant signed the acceptance form at page 6 of the letter accepting the employment and all the terms and conditions stated in the letter. The letter terminating the Claimant’s employment is Exhibit C dated 8th December 2017. The Claimant was informed that the Defendant has terminated his employment with effect from 7th January 2018 in accordance with the terms of the contract. The reason given by the Defendant in the letter for terminating the employment is “the failure to legally pay a Nigerian national employed by SMEC Nigeria in foreign currency”. From the terms of the contract, the Claimant’s employment commenced on 9th October 2017. It ought to be a one-year contract, but it was terminated with effect from 7th January 2018, which was barely 3 months into the contract. The Claimant was given one month’s notice of termination of his employment. I find from the facts and evidence before the court that after the termination letter to the Claimant, he remained in the employment and worked for the Defendant until 7th January 2018 when he handed over. That is to say the Defendant complied with the requirement of one-month notice required in the contract to terminate the employment. The employment was terminated in accordance with the procedure agreed in the contract. However, the Claimant’s grouse is not the mode of termination of the employment but the reason for which his employment was terminated. The Claimant’s case is that payment of his salaries in USD was agreed in the contract and the Defendant breached the contract when it terminated the employment for the Claimant’s refusal to be paid in any other currency other than the agreed denomination. This is the reason the Claimant said the termination was wrongful. In master and servant employment, as in this case, the employer can terminate the contract at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all. See IKHALE vs. F.A.A.N (2003) FWLR (Pt.181) 1726 at 1743; TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM UNLIMITED vs. OKUNDAYE (2003) FWLR (Pt.136) 961 at 972. Therefore, an employer is not bound to give reason for terminating the employment of his employee. However, where the employer gives a reason for terminating the employment, he must prove or justify the reason to the satisfaction of the court. Where the employer cannot justify the reason given for terminating the employment, the court will usually declare the termination to be wrongful. See S. P. D. C LTD vs. OLAREWAJU (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 1; OLATUNBOSUN vs. N. l. S. E. R. COUNCIL (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25. The reason given in the letter of termination for terminating the Claimant’s employment is that the Defendant cannot legally pay a Nigerian national employed by SMEC Nigeria in foreign currency. The Defendant’s witnesses told the court that the clause in the employment contract to pay the Claimant in USD while working in Nigeria was illegal because the legal tender in Nigeria is the Naira and it is an offence for any person to refuse to accept Naira as a means of payment. The Claimant’s employment was terminated when he refused to accept payment of his salaries and emoluments in Naira. In his submissions, the Defendant’s counsel cited Sections 15, 20[1] and [5] of the Central Bank of Nigeria Act 2007 and argued that since the Claimant’s contract was governed by the laws of Nigeria, payment of the Claimant’s salaries in USD was against the laws of Nigeria. Section 15 of the CBN Act provides that the Naira is the unit currency in Nigeria while Section 20[5] of the Act provides as follows: “A person who refuses to accept the naira as a means of payment is guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine of N50,000 or 6 months’ imprisonment: Provided that the Bank shall have powers to prescribe the circumstances and conditions under which other currencies may be used as medium of exchange in Nigeria.” It is a fact that the agreement provides for the payment of the Claimant’s salaries in USD. The Claimant is a Nigerian and was working for the Defendant in Nigeria. I have mentioned earlier that one of the terms of the Claimant’s employment is that the employment is governed by the laws of Nigeria. It is obvious that the Defendant premised its reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment on the above provisions of the CBN Act. What Section 20[5] of the CBN Act says is that a person who refuses to accept the Naira as a means of payment is guilty of an offence. In my view, the person who would be said to have violated the provision of the Act is the person who refuses to be paid in Naira. The provision did not say that payment cannot be made in Nigeria in other currencies other than the Naira. It did not also say that all transactions or payment in Nigeria or to a Nigerian citizen in Nigeria must be in Naira. The proviso to the subsection recognises the possibility of transactions being made in non-Nigerian currency when it gives power to the CBN to prescribe the circumstances and conditions under which other currencies may be used as medium of exchange in Nigeria. The agreement was entered into with the Claimant on 26th September 2017 in Kenya for him to work in Nigeria and receive his salaries in USD. The agreement had taken effect and the Claimant was being paid in accordance with the terms of the contract when the Defendant said it later discovered that it was illegal to pay the Claimant in USD in Nigeria. Now, the agreement was negotiated and executed to be paid in USD. There is no evidence that the Claimant was offered the employment in Naira and he refused. It was only in November 2017, after the agreement had commenced, that the Defendant told the Claimant that he can no longer be paid in USD. The Claimant was offered two other employments as alternatives. The Claimant’s refusal to be paid in Naira arose from the alternative contracts offered to him. His refusal to accept any of the contracts which was payable in Naira might constitute an offence under the CBN Act but his refusal to change the terms of his contract to allow payment of his salaries in Naira did not vitiate the existing contract or constitute a breach of the terms of the contract as to give the Defendant cause to terminate the contract. It is settled in plethora of decisions of the Supreme Court that parties are at liberty to make agreements or enter into contracts to pay in foreign currency. Such agreement is valid and the courts in Nigeria can make awards in the agreed foreign currency. See SALZGITTER STAHL GMBH vs. TUNJI DOSUNMU INDUSTRIES LTD. [2010] 11 NWLR [Pt. 1206] 589; METRONEX NIG. LTD vs. GRILFIN & GEORGE LTD 1991] 1 NWLR [Pt. 169] 651. I have examined the provisions of the CBN Act relied on by the Defendant, but I find that it cannot be a basis for termination of the Claimant’s employment. Its provisions in Section 20[5] did not entitle the Defendant to terminate the Claimant’s employment. The payment of the Claimant’s salaries in USD was agreed by the parties and it formed one of the terms of the contract. The terms of the contract are binding on the parties. See ONYEUKWU vs. FIRST BANK OF NIGERIA PLC (2015) LPELR-24672 CA; EMENIKE LTD vs. OLEKA 2004 LPELR-7358 CA. The Defendant entered into the contract with the Claimant with eyes wide open and with full knowledge of the terms of the contract. Since it was agreed by the parties that the Claimant will be paid his salaries in USD, the Defendant cannot terminate the contract because the Claimant refused to accept any other currency in payment. The Defendant appears to be economical with the truth about the actual reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment. The Defendant said it terminated the Claimant’s employment because it was illegal to pay the Claimant in foreign currency while working in Nigeria, yet it offered the Claimant an alternative employment payable in Kenyan shillings. Exhibit B is one of the alternative contracts offered to the Claimant. The Claimant’s salary is to be paid in Kenya Shillings. That contract too was to be based in Nigeria, but the mode of payment is not a Nigerian currency. How can it be illegal for the Defendant to pay the Claimant in USD but legal to pay him salaries in Kenya shillings? The alternative contract payable in a foreign currency shows clearly that the termination of the Claimant’s employment because it was illegal to pay him salaries in foreign currency is unjustified. The termination was done in bad faith. I find even that the Claimant’s salaries were not paid in Nigeria. From the evidence of the parties, the Claimant was employed in Kenya. He was only posted to work in Defendant’s Nigeria office. Under cross-examination, DW2 said the Claimant was employed in Kenya to work in Nigeria and it was the Kenya office that pays the Claimant’s salary and not the Nigerian office. If the Claimant’s salaries were being paid in Kenya, then the Defendant ought to know that Nigerian law will not apply to determine the denomination in which the Claimant’s salaries should be paid in Kenya. The fact that the Claimant’s salaries were being paid in Kenya all the more made the termination of his employment on the ground that it was illegal to pay his salaries in foreign currency wrongful. I find that the Defendant has not justified the reason it terminated the Claimant’s employment. The reason given for terminating the Claimant’s employment constitutes a breach of the contract. The Claimant has proved that his employment was wrongfully terminated on this account. In relief 3, the Claimant sought a declaration that the alternative contract offered to him in Exhibit B dated November 24, 2017 is in total breach of the already existing contract of employment between him and the Defendant and therefore wrongful, illegal, unlawful and done in bad faith. From the evidence of the parties, the Claimant did not accept this contract. It was never executed by the parties. That means the only contract entered into by the parties is the one in Exhibit A which was terminated by the Defendant. The contract in Exhibit B never came into existence as to vary Exhibit A contract. The parties did not acquire any rights or obligations under it which this court can consider. Consequently, relief 3 has no basis in this suit. The Claimant claims some reliefs on account of the wrongful termination of his employment. These are reliefs 4, 5 and 7. In relief 4, the Claimant sought to be paid the sum of $500,000 or N180,000,000 as damages for breach of contract. In relief 5 he wants to be paid the sum of $300,000 or N108,000,000 as damages for wrongful termination of his employment. And in relief 7, he sought to be paid the sum of $500,000 or N180, 000,000 as general damages for the hardships he suffered as a result of the breach of contract and wrongful termination of his employment. These claims are the same claims. The claims arose from the same transaction which is the wrongful termination of his employment. What the Claimant has done is to split his claim for damages into multiple heads, perhaps, as a fall-back strategy. If one of the claims does not succeed, another might succeed. Let me emphasise the point that the courts do not award multiple damages in respect of the same injury complained of in an action. Therefore, since the Claimant’s claims for general damages are all in respect of the wrongful termination of his employment, I will simply consider whether he is entitled to any damages at all on account of the wrongful termination of his contract of employment. In his evidence, the Claimant said since the termination of his employment, he and his family members have been suffering untold hardship as a result of the termination of his employment. He left his employment in Kenya to take up employment with the Defendants and now he has lost both employments. He has lost his means of income and now borrows to take care of himself and his family. After termination of his employment, he had to return to his family in Kenya which made him to abandon his rented apartment in Abuja. He lost the rent of $19,500 he paid for the flat save the sum of $4,500 the Defendant paid to him out of the sum he paid for the flat. Let me first address the issue of the rent the Claimant said he lost. The Claimant tendered Exhibit D as the receipt with which he paid the sum of $19,500 as one-year rent for a 2 bedroom flat at No. 45, Mamman Nasir Street, Asokoro, Abuja. The Defendant joined issues with the Claimant on the allegation. The Defendant averred that the Claimant did not rent a 2 bedroom flat in the said address as he claims, nor did he pay the sum of $19,500 as rent because he stayed in the Defendant’s guest house at Jabi, Abuja all the period before the termination of his employment. The Defendant also said it paid the sum of $4,500 to the Claimant as rent. In the contract, the Claimant was entitled to be paid $1,500 monthly for accommodation. For the one-year duration of the contract, the total amount he ought to earn as accommodation allowances was $18,000. The Claimant was aware of this fact, but he overshot his allowances for accommodation by renting an apartment at a sum higher than what he ought to earn for the purpose. He cannot now say the Defendant made him lose the sum he paid higher than his accommodation allowances. The parties are ad idem on the fact that the Claimant received the sum of $4,500 as accommodation allowance before his employment was terminated. This sum represents 3 months accommodation allowance. The Claimant started work with the Defendant in Nigeria on 9th October 2017 and left the employment on 7th January 2018. He spent 3 months in the employment. The sum paid to him by the Defendant as accommodation allowance covered 3 months rents in the period he worked for the Defendant. The Defendant did not owe him any accommodation allowance. In paragraph 18[g] of the statement of defence, the Defendant averred that the Claimant stayed in its guest house at Jabi, Abuja during the period of his employment and he did not rent any apartment. The Claimant filed only a defence to the counter claim. He did not file a reply to the statement of defence. This allegation of the Defendant was not denied by the Claimant. In BONGO vs. GOVERNOR, ADAMAWA STATE (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 633) 1908 at 1939, it was held that: “Where a plaintiff fails to traverse the facts averred in a statement of defence, which have not been taken care of by the averments in his statement of claim, he would be deemed to have admitted the facts in the statement of defence”. See also IWUOHA vs. NIPOST LTD (2003) FWLR (Pt. 160) 1535 at 1559. The implication of the Claimant’s failure to file a reply to the statement of defence or to traverse the Defendant’s allegation that he stayed in its guest house at Jabi, Abuja during the period of his employment is an admission of the allegation. Having admitted the fact, this court will take it as correct that the Claimant stayed in the Defendant’s guest house throughout the period of his employment. Exhibit D shows that the rent was paid in October 2017. The Claimant left the employment in January 2018. From the period he paid for the flat to the time he left the employment, he did not live in the flat at all. Why then did the Claimant go to pay for a flat when he was staying in the guest house or when he was not ready to live in the flat? Clearly, the Claimant rented the said flat and paid one-year rent at his own volition. From the forging, the Claimant’s allegation that he lost the rent he paid for the flat cannot be a consideration in determining the quantum of damages he is entitled to. I have mentioned it earlier in this judgment that the Defendant has the right in the contract to terminate the contract at any time notwithstanding that the contract was for an agreed duration. The termination was within the right of the Defendant to do. The only obstruction to the exercise of that right is that the reason given for it was not justified. I have also said earlier that the Defendant’s termination of the employment was done in bad faith. The Claimant was made to alter his station in life when he was offered the employment. He did suffer some inconveniences and hardships when the Defendant abruptly terminated the employment. The Claimant has suffered some injuries as a result of the Defendant’s termination of the contract. The Claimant has shown the extent of the damages done to him by the Defendant’s action. The Claimant, in my view, is entitled to some compensation. In master and servant employment, where the employment was terminated wrongfully without the requisite notice, the usual damages to be awarded to the servant for the wrongful termination of his employment is the salary he ought to have earned for the period of notice and any other benefits he is entitled to. See ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408; BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. vs. NAPOLEON ESEALUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 411 at 437. In this case, notice of termination was given to the Claimant. Therefore, the issue of payment of one-month salary in lieu of notice to the Claimant as damages does not arise in this case. It is the law that no wrong will be allowed to go without a remedy. The Claimant should not be allowed to go back home empty handed to continue to nurse the unjust termination of his employment without giving him a remedy. He should be placated by some form of compensation from the Defendant. In my assessment, the sum of N10,000,000.00 is sufficient payment as damages to the Claimant for the wrongful termination of his employment. In relief 6, the Claimant claims for reimbursement of all the reimbursable expenses he incurred in the performance of his duties which he mentioned to be the following: 1. The sum of USD 200 representing his reimbursable expenses on mobile telephone airtime covering the month of November and December. 2. The sum of KSH 320,000 representing his Kenya outstation car hire reimbursable expenses. 3. The sum of KHS 474,30A representing his Kenya outstation accommodation reimbursable expenses. 4. The sum of N144,000 representing his Lagos outstation accommodation reimbursable expenses. 5. The sum of N109,000 representing his Lagos outstation car hire reimbursable expenses In his evidence, the Claimant said he incurred the following reimbursable costs while in the employment: the sum of 200 USD on mobile telephone airtime between November and December; Kenya outstation car hire amounting to 320,000 Kenya Shillings; Kenya outstation accommodation amounting to the sum of 474,300 Kenya Shillings; Lagos outstation accommodation amounting to the sum of N144,000; and Lagos outstation car hire amounting to the sum of N109,000. The Claimant pleaded and tendered in evidence the recharge cards, receipts and invoices which are the evidence of these expenses. The Defendant admits that the Claimant is entitled to be reimbursed the sum of 200USD being expenses for mobile telephone airtime between November and December but deny other expenses. It is averred by the Defendant that the Claimant is not entitled to be reimbursed the sum of KSH320,000 for Kenya outstation car hire expenses and the sum of KHS474,300 for Kenya outstation accommodation expenses because he did not obtain approval from his supervisor to incur these expenses. The Claimant is not entitled to the sum of N144,000 which he claims for Lagos outstation accommodation expenses because he has not justified the advance payment in the sum N624,000 which he collected and he had no approval to stay in Eko Hotel from 24/12/2017 to 27/12/2017. The Claimant is also not entitled to the sum N109,000 which he claims for Lagos outstation car hire expenses because the expenses was part of the N624,000 he collected. As for the Claimant’s claim for airtime expenses, it is trite that fact admitted need no further proof. This aspect of the claim is taken as established. For the other expenses denied by the Defendant, the burden of proof is on the Claimant to establish that he incurred those expenses and that he had the approval of the Defendant to incur the expenses. The Claimant’s evidence for the Kenya outstation car hire expenses in the sum of KSH320,000 is Exhibit F1. It is a receipt of Newman’s Travel & Tours with address in Nairobi, Kenya issued to the Claimant on 10th November 2017. The receipt is not signed by either the Claimant or the organisation who issued it. The evidence of the Lagos outstation accommodation in the sum of N144,000 is Exhibit F2. It is a receipt issued by Eko Hotels and Suites on 24/12/2017 to the Claimant. This receipt too was not signed by either the Claimant or the issuing hotel. There are also the receipts for the Lagos outstation car hire in the total sum of N109,000. These are Exhibits F3 and F4. The dates on the receipts are 19/12/17, 20/12/17, 21/12/17, 22/12/17, 23/12/17 and 5/1/18. These receipts were not signed by either the Claimant or the organisation who issued them. Where a document is not signed, it may not be admitted in evidence but where it is admitted in evidence, the court should not attach any probative value to it. This is because a document which is not signed has no origin in terms of its maker has no evidential value in law. See OMEGA BANK NIGERIA PLC vs. O. B. C. LIMITED LER [2005] S.C. 77/2002 at 14; G.S. & O. IND. LTD vs. NAFDAC (2012) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1294) 511 at 536; AMIZU vs. NZERIBE (1989) 4 NWLR (Pt.118) 755. Also, in A. G. ABIA STATE vs. AGBARANYA (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 362 at 371, it was held that an unsigned document is worthless and void. In the circumstance, Exhibits F2, F3 and F4 are useless as proof of the alleged expenses. This court cannot determine the claims for expenses on the basis of the exhibits. I will discountenance them. The effect is that the Claimant has not adduced cogent and acceptable proof that he incurred the alleged expenses. The Defendant has alleged that it gave the Claimant an advance sum of N624,000 to carry out his duties outside Abuja from 8th December 2017 but the Claimant has not justified how he used the advance payment. In his defence to counter claim, the Claimant admitted that the sum of N624,000 was given to him by the Defendant to carry out his duties outside Abuja but averred that he accounted for the advance payment and he made retirements by submitting all receipts to the Defendant. From the evidence, the sum of N624,000 was given to the Claimant for his outstation expenses from 8th December 2017. Now, the alleged expenses for Lagos outstation accommodation and Lagos outstation car hire were incurred in December 2017 after the said advance payment was given to the Claimant. These expenses ought to have been covered in the advance payment unless the Claimant explains what he expended the money on which made the money insufficient to cover the outstation accommodation and car hire expenses he allegedly incurred. Although the Claimant said he made retirements of the sum to the Defendant, the Defendant said the Claimant did not justify how he used the money. The allegation of the Defendant put a duty on the Claimant to explain to this court how he expended the advance payment. It is only from such explanation this court will know that the outstation accommodation and car hire expenses he now claims was not taken care of in that advance payment. The Claimant did not explain to this court how he used that money. He did not put before this court evidence of the retirement he made to the Defendant or copies the receipts he said he submitted to the Defendant. It is therefore difficult for this court to believe that the Lagos outstation accommodation and car hire expenses were not part of the advance payment given to him. I find that the Claimant has not proved his claim for reimbursement for Kenya outstation car hire expenses, Lagos outstation accommodation expenses and Lagos outstation car hire expenses. As for the claim for the Kenya outstation accommodation expenses in the sum of KHS474,300, the receipt is Exhibit F dated 11/11/2017. It is stamped with the stamp of the issuing organisation in Nairobi and signed. It indicated that the payment was for one-month accommodation of served/furnished flat. According to the Defendant, it is the Defendant’s policy that approval must be sought and obtained from the supervisor before expenses are incurred in the name of the Defendant. The Defendant’s witnesses stated that the Claimant did not obtain approval from his supervisor to incur these expenses. DW1 tendered the Defendant’s travel policy in evidence. It is Exhibit K. The Claimant did not file a reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence. Thus, the Defendant’s averments in paragraph 22 of the statement of defence that it is the Defendant’s policy that approval must be sought and obtained from the supervisor before expenses are incurred in the name of the Defendant is not denied by the Claimant. I have seen the clause at page 2 of Exhibit K which provides that all expenses must be pre-authorised, and reimbursement will be made for all necessary and approved expenses made while travelling for the business of the company. In his defence to the counter claim and in his additional evidence, the Claimant said he had approval from the 1st Defendant to travel to Nairobi in the course of his duties and on behalf of the Defendant. The Defendant paid for the air ticket to and from Nairobi and it also approved his accommodation, local transport and per diem for the Nairobi trip. He said the request for approval for the Nairobi trip and the approval were through his supervisor, Chike Uchendu [DW1] and they communicated via email on 6th November 2017. These emails are Exhibits H1 and H2. By his evidence that he sought approval from the Defendant, the Claimant seems to agree that it was the policy of the 1st Defendant that approval must be sought and obtained before expenses are incurred. The fact that the Claimant was aware of the Defendant’s policy on reimbursable expenses was clarified during his cross-examination when he said he is aware of the company policy on outstation transportation and accommodation. In the Claimant’s email to DW1 on 6th November 2017, he sought approval to travel to Lagos on 8/11/2017 to visit some companies before he returns to Nairobi on 10/11/17. In an email of same day, DW1 approved. Now, the trip or the assignment for which the Claimant sought approval in the email was in respect of the trips to Lagos to visit the mentioned companies. He did not seek approval to go to Nairobi. He only said he wanted to visit those companies in Lagos before returning to Nairobi. Therefore, the approval was for the Lagos trip. The Claimant did not show any proof of his application for or the Defendant’s approval for the Nairobi accommodation expenses which amounted to the sum of KHS474,300. In the absence of such evidence of approval for the expenses, the Claimant is not entitled to be reimbursed for same. Having considered the Claimant’s claim for reimbursement, I find he is entitled to be reimbursed only for the mobile telephone airtime expenses. All other claim in relief 6 fails. The Claimant also claims for cost of litigation in the sum of N10,000,000. This is relief 7. The Claimant told the court in his evidence that he briefed a law firm to seek redress in court and his general cost of bringing this action is the sum of N10,000,000 which he borrowed with interest. He relied on receipt issued by his solicitor. The Defendant denied this allegation. The Claimant did not tender any evidence of the cost of litigation. He also did not tender the said receipt from his solicitor. The Claimant failed to adduce any evidence to substantiate the cost he allegedly incurred in the litigation. No basis has been presented before this court to warrant the award of the sum claimed as cost of litigation. Notwithstanding this finding, no evidence is needed to convince this court that the claimant has incurred expenses in prosecuting this action which he was compelled to institute as a result of the wrongful termination of his employment. It is within the discretion of this court to award cost to him. The Claimant is entitled to some cost. ISSUE 3: I will now consider the Defendant’s counter claim. The first relief sought by the Defendant in the counter claim is a declaration that the Claimant’s suit is malicious and an abuse of court process. In view of my findings and conclusion in issue 2 of this judgment, this relief has no merit. It is dismissed straight away. In the statement of defence as well as in the evidence of DW2, the Defendant’s case on the counter claim is that the Claimant was given an advance sum of N624,000 to carry out his duties outside Abuja from 8th December 2017. The Claimant has not accounted for the sum of N263,000 out of the advance payment. The Claimant is entitled to refund the sum of N263,000 to the Defendant out of the advance payment of N624,000 given to him. Also, it is a policy of the Defendant that every member of staff is entitled to N36,000 per night for hotel accommodation in Lagos or a night at a hotel where the Defendant has an arrangement for its staff. The Claimant spent N26,000 excess amount for hotel accommodation for 5th and 6th December 2017. The Claimant took an unauthorised car hire at the rate of N20,000 on 23/12/2017 when he was scheduled to have travelled to Nairobi, Kenya on 22/12/2017. The Claimant is to refund the sums of N26,000 and N20,000 to the Defendant. On the basis of these facts, the Defendant claimed from the Claimant the sums of N20,000, N26,000 and N217,000 in reliefs b, c and d of the counter claim respectively. In his defence to the counter claim, the Claimant said he spent the advance payment given to him by the Defendant judiciously and retired the sum by submitting all receipts to the Defendant. He said he was cleared by the Defendant of any outstanding refund after the termination of his employment. The Claimant further said he applied for all outstation accommodation and car hire and they were approved by his supervisor in the person of Chike Uchendu through email correspondences of 6/11/2017, 18/12/2017, 19/12/2017 and 4/1/2018. He concluded that the Defendant is not entitled to any refund in the sum of N263,000. I have held in this judgment that it is not in dispute that the Claimant was given advance payment of N624,000 for his duties in December 2017 by the Defendant. The Defendant has now alleged that the Claimant did not account for the sum of N263,000 out of the advance payment. Having made this allegation, the Defendant counter claims in relief [d] for a refund of the sum of N217,000 from the Claimant. The Defendant did not plead or give any evidence regarding the sum of N217,000. The Defendant did not explain how the unaccounted sum of N263,000 dropped to the sum it claimed in relief [d] of the counter claim. The implication of the foregoing is that the Defendant did not claim the sum it alleged was unaccounted for by the Claimant and did not prove the sum of N217,000 it claims as refund from the Claimant. Similarly, the Defendant said only the sum of N263,000 was unaccounted for from the advance payment given to the Claimant. The fact that the Defendant is not asking for refund of the entire advance payment given to the Claimant is an acknowledgement that the Defendant has the account of the part of the advance payment which the Claimant accounted for. The evidence was not presented to this court. No evidence was adduced before this court to show that the Claimant did not account for the sum of N263,000. Exhibit P is a schedule of expenses to which is attached some car hire receipts. The Defendant did not mention anywhere that this document contains the expenses the Claimant accounted for. If, perhaps, this is the evidence relied on by the Defendant, then I will state straightaway that it is useless to the Defendant’s case. The document is not signed. It is worthless and has no evidential value. In the result, the Defendant has not proved that the Claimant did not account for the sum of N263,000. Again, the sum of N217,000 claimed as refund from the Claimant has not been proved. Exhibits O and Q are hotel invoices issued by Eko Hotel & Suites. These are the evidence relied on by the Defendant for its claim for refund of N26,000 excess amount for hotel accommodation for 5th and 6th December 2017. These invoices have provision of space for signature, but they too are not signed. They are equally affected by the virus of unsigned documents. I cannot examine them in determining the Defendant’s claim for refund of N26,000 excess hotel accommodation. The Defendant’s claim for refund of N20,000 spent by the Claimant for unauthorised car hire is also not proved by the Defendant. The Defendant’s proof of this claim is Exhibit P. The document is a schedule of expenses to which is attached some car hire receipts. Both the exhibit and its attachments are not signed. They have no evidential value and cannot be of any use in determining the Defendant’s claim for car hire refund. The consequence is that the Defendant has not produced evidence to show that the Claimant hired a car at the rate of N20,000 on 23/12/2017. I find from the foregoing that the Defendant has not proved its counter claim. This also applies to the claim for damages sought by the Defendant. The Defendant’s counter claim is consequently dismissed. In the final result of this case, I find that the Claimant has proved reliefs 1 and 2. I accordingly award to the Claimant, in lieu of reliefs 4, 5 and 7, the sum of N10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) as damages for the wrongful termination of his employment. Relief 6 [a] for payment of the sum of $200 is granted. Reliefs 3, 6 [b, c, d and e] and relief 7 are dismissed. Cost of N200,000 is awarded to the Claimant against the Defendant. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge