Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims 1.1. On 17/6/16, the Claimant commenced this suit via his General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts, witness deposition, list of documents as well as copies of documents. By his Amended Statement of Facts filed on 13/6/18 sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant is unlawful and in breach of the Claimant's contract of employment. 2. An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=56,000.00 (Fifty Six Thousand Naira) being his one month basic salary in lieu of notice of termination. 3. An Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant his entitlements amounting in total to the sum of =N=3,640,000.00 (Three Million, Six Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira). 4. The sum of =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) being the Claimant's Solicitors' fees. 5. The sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) being general damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment. 1.2. Upon being served the originating processes, the Defendant entered an appearance to the suit and filed a statement of defence on 6/10/16 accompanying its statement of defence with all the requisite frontloaded processes. Claimant filed a reply to the Statement of Defence on 3/2/17. 2. Case of the Claimant 2,1. Claimant opened his case on 17/5/17 and testified as CW1. Claimant adopted his witness deposition dated 17/6/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 9 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C9. 2.2. The case of the Claimant as revealed in brief from his pleadings is that he was offered an employment by the Defendant on 15/10/90 as a Clerk and was placed on Defendant's pay roll; that he served the Defendant diligently, received several promotions and salary reviews from the Defendant in recognition of his commendable performance; that he was promoted to the post of Terminal Manager in 2005 and assigned to manage and supervise a new terminal built by the Defendant at Plot 5, Tin can Island, Lagos; that following the death of the Defendant's Managing Director in October 2015, his wife and children took over the management of the Defendant; that consequent upon the takeover, the new management for no just cause decided to move against the Claimant by victimizing him; that on 15/3/16, the Defendant served him a letter of retrenchment with effect from 16/3/16; that his retrenchment was in breach of the redundancy provisions contained in the Defendant's Staff Handbook, Terms and Conditions of service; that the termination of his employment is unlawful not having been given one month notice of termination; that he served the Defendant for 26 years and his last basic monthly salary was =N=112,000.00; that the Defendant has failed to pay him his entitlements despite several promises made both verbally and in writing and that the Defendant had in the past paid employees whose employment was terminated or who resigned from service their entitlements. 2.3. Under cross examination, Claimant testified that the founder of the Defendant died in October 2015; that the exhibits tendered were photocopies of the documents in his file; that he discovered the originals were missing after he left the Defendant; that he could not remember his last pay while with the Defendant; that he submitted his statement of GCE result obtained in 1986 to the Defendant; that the issue of the original certificate did not come up while he was with the Defendant; that in the letter of termination of his employment he was directed to submit his I.D card upon payment of his entitlement; that the I. D card was issued to him by the Defendant; that the practice of the Defendant is to indicate year of employment of staff identity card; that from 1999, the Defendant had no more provision for staff loan; that he worked in three Departments since joining the Defendant and had no issue with the Defendant; that he was demoted though his salary was not reduced; that he could not remember his basic salary; that the Department he was posted was verbally instructed not to involve him in any operation and that the Defendant had issued verbal instruction in the past. 3. Case of the Defendant 3.1. On 16/4/18, the Defendant opened its defence and called on Albert Olabode as its DW1 who adopted his witness deposition of 19/7/17 as his evidence in chief 36 documents as exhibits. the documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. KO1-Exh. KO36. 3.2. The case of the Defendant is that the employment of the Claimant was lawfully terminated; that Claimant was never diligent nor was his work satisfactory as he was issued several queries, warnings based on lateness to work documents mishandling, insubordination and absenteeism; that Claimant was merely seconded to the newly built terminal pending the employment of suitable personnel to fill the vacancy; that the new Management only came up with honest assessment of the Claimant that he would be better off in the Clearing Department where he would have to work with others to minimize mistakes and poor document handling; that the termination of Claimant's employment was not out of victimization; the Claimant could not produce the original of his certificates; that the Defendant did not have any Staff Handbook though the Founder had informed him that he had some copies of the Handbook he asked a Printer to do for him which he was studying in conjunction with some experts; that the copy of the purported Handbook tendered by the Claimant was part of the pilfering into the founder's personal effects while Claimant was working close to him; that the basic monthly salary was =N=56,000.00 and not =N=112, 000.00 as claimed by the Claimant; that Claimant was indicted in a series of fraud while the founder was in the hospital and that the role of the Claimant in fraud committed on the Defendant amounted to gross misconduct which would have been an outright dismissal if those information got to the Defendant before the termination letter was issued. 3.3. While being cross examined, DW1 stated that he signed his witness deposition in the Court Registry; that he was employed in 2007; that Claimant was the then Terminal Manager of the Defendant; that Claimant was Terminal Manager before his employment was terminated; that he was not given a month notice nor paid salary in lieu; that Claimant has not been paid his entitlement; that he does not know the figure of his entitlement; that the Defendant has never paid any terminal benefit on the basis of Staff Handbook; that no case was reported against the Claimant while he was with the Defendant; that Claimant was indicted in 2016 after had left the Defendant and that he does not have evidence of the indictment. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel 4.1. At the close of trial, learned Counsel on either side were directed to file their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of this Court. Pursuant to that direction, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed a final written address of 28 pages on 24/7/17. In it Counsel set down the following 2 issues for determination - 1. Whether or not the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant is wrongful and in breach of the Defendant's Staff Handbook, Terms and Conditions of Service. 2. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced before this Court, the Claimant is entitled to payment of his one month basic salary in lieu of notice of termination, his entitlements (redundancy benefits and gratuity), Solicitors' fees and general damages for wrongful termination of his employment by the Defendant. 4.2. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted citing Nigerian Romanian Wood Industries Limited (NIROWI) v. J.O. Akinkugbe (2011)11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 131 at 148 that the Claimant has the onus to place before the Court the terms of his contract of employment and to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. Learned Counsel referred to Claimant's Staff Identity Card Exh. C1, the memo placing the Claimant on the Defendant's Pay Roll Exh. C2 and Claimant's letters of promotions while with the Defendant Exh. C3(1-12) and Exh. C6 being Defendant's Staff Hand Book Terms and Condition and that by Defendant's memo of 16/1/98 Claimant indeed had a letter of employment. Counsel submitted that the Defendant breached the terms and conditions binding between the parties as termination of employment on the basis of redundancy was not part of the terms and conditions of Claimant's employment; that parties are bound by their contract citing Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Soares (2012)11 NWLR (Pt.1312)550 at 571. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve the first issue in favour of the Claimant. 4.3. On the second issue, Counsel submitted that the Claimant was not given a month notice in lieu of termination of his employment; that Claimant tendered Exh. C3 in proof of his monthly basic salary at =N=56,000.00; that on the second relief, there is evidence that Claimant served Defendant for 26 years and explicitly put forward his entitlement in his evidence in chief; that the sum of =N=3,640,000.00 was his entitlement in accordance with the Staff Handbook, Terms and Conditions (Exh. C6) particularly by paragraph 5.7 and that the evidence led was not challenged citing Chabasaya v. Anirasi (2010)10 NWLR (Pt. 1201) 163. Counsel submitted that Claimant's evidence respecting his claim for Solicitor's Fees was not challenged neither was he cross examined on it by the Defendant. Citing Ayoola JSC in Oforiete v. State (2000)12 NWLR (Pt. 681) 415 at 439 submitted that a party who fails to cross examine a witness upon a particular matter in respect of which it is proposed to contradict him or impeach his credit by calling witness tacitly accepts the truth of the witness's evidence-in-chief of the matter. Counsel prayed the Court to award the Solicitor's fees there being no challenge to the evidence led and equally award general damages for the wrongful determination of the employment of the Claimant. Counsel finally prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs as sought by the Claimant. 4.4. On 6/12/19, the Defendant filed a 10-page final written address. Unfortunately, learned Counsel did not set down any issue for the just determination of this case. All that Counsel did was to argue against the written submission of the Claimant. Counsel argued that the Staff Handbook was not signed and hence should be rejected citing Fashehun v. A.G, Federation (2006)6 NWLR (Pt. 975) 14; that failure of the Claimant to tender his letter of appointment is fatal to his case citing Dawodu v. UBA (2004)9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 276; that Claimant has failed to place the terms and conditions of his employment before the Court and that all that the Claimant is entitled to is a month salary in lieu of notice. Learned Counsel prayed the court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. 5. Decision 5.1. I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I patiently listened to the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I set down the following issues for the just determination of this case - 1. Whether failure of the Claimant to tender his letter of appointment was fatal to his case. 2. Whether or not the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant is wrongful and in breach of the Defendant's Staff Handbook, Terms and Conditions of Service. 3. Whether having regard to the evidence adduced before this Court, the Claimant is entitled to payment of his one month basic salary in lieu of notice of termination, his entitlements (redundancy benefits and gratuity), Solicitors' fees and general damages for wrongful termination of his employment by the Defendant. 5.2. Generally speaking in litigation, it is for the party seeking a judicial relief to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence before the Court. The said evidence which may be written or oral or both will no doubt form the basis upon which the Court will make its findings one way or the other. It is doubtless saying that the determination of a case will revolve around just a piece of evidence only. For, the Court is bound to examine the whole gamut of a case and its surrounding circumstances in order to do substantial justice between the parties. Where a Court of law fails or neglects to examine the whole ramifications of a case, a resulting Judgment will be nothing but technical and restricted justice. Learned Counsel to the Defendant devoted a substantial portion of his 10 page final written address to the fact of Claimant's failure to tender his letter of appointment and the alleged consequences of the same. It was the argument of the learned Counsel that failure to tender the letter of appointment by the Claimant is fatal to his case as the letter forms the basis of his contract with the Defendant. 5.3. Of a truth Claimant did not tender his letter of appointment. His testimony in chief is to the effect that he misplaced same while changing accommodation and could not locate it. There is no controversy as to whether the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant. Indeed, the Defendant in its averments acknowledged that fact. There is evidence before me to the effect that Claimant was the Terminal Manager of the Defendant when his appointment was terminated. See Exh. C1 (notwithstanding the date of issuance) and page 12 of Exh. C3. Claimant led evidence of existence of Staff Handbook which contained the terms and conditions of engagement - Exh. C6. It is interesting to note that perhaps the only argument against that exhibit was that it was not signed. Kanyip J (as he then was) in Sunday Nwokenkwu v. Stambic IBTC Bank Plc Suit No: NICN/ABJ/171 Judgment of which was delivered on19/11/19 following his earlier decision in Mrs. Roseline Ekeng v. International Energy Insurance Plc Suit No: NICN/LA/122/2016 Judgment of which delivered on 18/6/2019 in paragraph 76 thereof stated thus - '' ... conditions of service are most often not signed, or even dated in the manner canvassed by the defendant. Employees are not required to sign conditions of service. In other words, the applicability of conditions of service or staff handbooks is not dependent on their being dated, or signed by either the employer and/0r employee.'' 5.4. I have more than sufficient evidence to make a finding that the absence of or failure to tender his letter of employment is not in any way or manner fatal to the case of the Claimant. For instance, I have before me Claimant's Staff Identity Card. I have on record Defendant's admission that Claimant was its employee. I have evidence of promotion and payment of salary to the Claimant. I also have evidence queries issued by the Defendant to the Claimant. All this is in addition to the Staff Handbook Terms and Conditions of the Defendant applicable to the Claimant. Indeed, it is not usual to find a letter of appointment containing all the terms and conditions of engagement. Thus references are usually made often in letters of appointment to staff handbook, terms and conditions or staff policy depending on the name ascribed by the establishment to such documents. I resolve the first issue for determination in favour of the Claimant and hold that failure to tender his letter of appointment is not in any way fatal to the case of the Claimant. 5.5. The second issue for determination is whether or not the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant is wrongful and in breach of the Defendant's Staff Handbook, Terms and Conditions of Service. . It is a trite law that in an action for wrongful termination of employment, 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. 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 Abubakar J.C.A in Kabelmetal Nigeria Limited v. Gabriel Ativie (2001) FWLR (Pt. 66) 662 at 675. The employment of the Claimant was terminated by Exh. C5. It was dated 15/3/16 and was to take effect on 16/3/16. In other words, Claimant was given only a day notice of termination of employment. The position of the Claimant as Terminal Manager of the Defendant was reiterated by Exh. KO25, Exh. KO 28 and Exh. KO35. That was a senior position with the Defendant. Exh. C6 contains the terms and conditions of service binding between the parties in this case. I have already held in this Judgment that that exhibit does not require any form of execution by either party to this case. S.7(1)(b) of the exhibit states that the appointment of a confirmed staff shall be terminated by giving one month's notice or salary in lieu while the appointment of probationary staff shall be terminated by giving 2 weeks' notice. I declare that the failure of the Defendant to comply with its terms and conditions of service as contained in Exh. C5 amounts to wrongful termination of Claimant's employment. This is for failure to give the requisite one month notice or pay a month's basic salary in lieu. Without much ado, this issue is resolved in favour of the Claimant and against the Defendant. 5.6. The third issue for resolution is whether having regard to the evidence adduced before this Court, the Claimant is entitled to payment of his one month basic salary in lieu of notice of termination, his entitlements (redundancy benefits and gratuity), Solicitors' fees and general damages for wrongful termination of his employment by the Defendant. I have in this Judgment found that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was wrongful for failure to give a month notice or pay one month's salary in lieu of notice. Consequence upon that, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant. By Exh. C3 Claimant's annual basic salary as at 28/9/14 was =N=672,000.00. His monthly basic salary was =N=56,000.00. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=56,000.00 being his entitlement in lieu of a month notice of termination of his appointment. 5.7. The third relief sought by the Claimant is for an Order directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant his entitlements amounting in total to the sum of =N=3,640,000.00 (Three Million, Six Hundred and Forty Thousand Naira). The figure consists of his claims for redundancy benefits and gratuity. By Exh. C1 & Exh. C2, Claimant was employed in October of 1990. His employment was terminated by Exh. C5 effective from 16/3/16. Thus Claimant had served the Defendant for a period of 26 years before he was laid off by the Defendant. Now, in proof of his entitlements to both redundancy benefits and gratuity, Claimant exhibited Exh. C6. Under Exh. C6, entitlement to gratuity is subject to continuous service in the employment of the Defendant for a period of at least 5 years. The calculation of the same by virtue of the same exhibit is on the basis of 4 weeks basic pay for each Year of service completed. Thus Claimant is entitled to 4 weeks basic for each of his 26 years of continuous service to the Defendant. Claimant's basic monthly pay was =N=56,000.00. Thus, Claimant's gratuity entitlement is =N=1,456,000.00. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1, 456,000.00 being his gratuity entitlement for 26 years service period. 5.8. Respecting claims for redundancy, paragraph 7.4 of Exh. C6 referred to Redundancy as involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of man power. The company shall inform the workers' representatives of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy. Still under paragraph 7.4 of Exh. C6 redundancy benefits shall be payable as follows: (i). 2-10 years - Four (4) weeks basic salary per year of service; (ii). 11 years and above - Six (6) weeks basic salary per year of service completed. Employees of the Defendant that qualify for gratuity and pension shall be paid including their redundancy benefits. See Paragraph 7.4 (c) of Exh. C6. On the basis that Claimant worked for the Defendant for 26 years; that his monthly basic salary was =N=56,000.00 and is entitled to 6 weeks basic salary per year of service Claimant's redundancy entitlement is =N=2,184,000.00. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=2, 184,000.00 being his redundancy entitlement under Exh. C6. 5.9. Claimant sought an order of Court directing the Defendant to pay to him the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 being Solicitor's fees. This claim is in the nature of special damages. The law respecting special damages is trite there is need to specifically plead and strictly prove special damages as the rule requires anyone asking for special damages to prove strictly that he did suffer such damages as being claimed. This does not mean that the law requires a minimum measure of evidence or that the law lays down a special category of evidence required to establish entitlement to special damages. What is required of a party claiming special damages is to establish entitlement to such special damages by credible evidence of such a character as would suggest that he indeed is entitled to an award under that head. Save this qualification, the general law of evidence as to prove by preponderance or weight as usual in civil cases operates. See Oshinjirin v. Elias (1970) All NLR 153. See also Warner International v. Federal Housing Authority (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt.298) 148. See also Flourmills of Nigeria Plc & Anor. v. Nigeria Customs Service Board & Ors.(2016) LPELR (CA). Claimant did not lead sufficiently cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of this head of claim. I therefore refuse and dismiss the same accordingly. 5.10. Finally, Claimant sought an award of the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) to him as general damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment. The principles governing the measure of damages for wrongful termination of appointment or employment are settled and they have been stated and restated by the Courts and the damages that can be awarded are, prima facie, the amount the employee would have earned had the employment or appointment continued according to the contract of employment subject to deduction in respect of amount accruing from any other employment which the employee in minimizing damages either obtained or should have reasonably obtained. See Nigeria Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111, International Drilling Nigeria Ltd Vs Ajijola (1976) All NLR 870, Obot v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1983) NWLR (Pt 310) 149, Chukwuma v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nig Ltd (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt 206) 691, Adeniran v. National Electric Power Authority (2002) 14 NWLR (Pt 786) 30, Ibama v. Shell Petroleum Development Company Nig Ltd (2005) 17 NWLR (Pt 954) 364, Oshisanya v. Afribank (Nig) Plc (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt 1031) 565, Shell Petroleum Development Company Nig Ltd v. Olanrewaju (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1118) 1. It is the salaries and the other legitimate entitlements that the employee would have been entitled to for the period necessary to determine the contract of employment. See Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Chinyere (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt 1203) 453. 5.11. General damages, as a rule, are not awarded for wrongful termination of employment. See WNDC v. Abimbola (1966) 1 ALL NLR 159, Shena Security Co Ltd v. Afropak (Nig) Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt 1118) 77, New Nigeria Newspapers Ltd v. Atoyebi (2013) LPELR-CA/K/282/2006, Selcon Tannery Ltd v. Abubakar (2013) LPELR-CA/K/176/2010. The only exception is that where the termination carries with it a stigma on the character of the employee, award of damages beyond the amount the employee would have earned might be considered. See Ezekiel v. Westminister Dredging Ltd (2000) 9 NWLR (Pt 672) 248, British Airways v. Makajuola (1993) 8 NWLR (Pt 311) 276 Mobil Producing Unit Unlimited v. Udo (2008) LPELR-CA/C/11/2006. 5.12. In the instant case, Claimant has already been awarded a month's basic salary in lieu of not being served a month notice of termination of his appointment by the Defendant. To again award the sum of Ten Million Naira or any sum for that matter will amount to double compensation. The law undoubtedly seriously frowns at award of double compensation. See Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ayeni & Ors. (2019) LPELR (CA). The claim for general damages is here refused and dismissed for lack of proof by cogent evidence. 5.13. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment - 1. I hold that the absence of or failure to tender his letter of employment is not in any way or manner fatal to the case of the Claimant. 2. I declare that the failure of the Defendant to comply with its terms and conditions of service as contained in Exh. C5 amounts to wrongful termination of Claimant's employment. 3. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=56,000.00 being his entitlement in lieu of a month notice of termination of his appointment. 4. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=1, 456,000.00 being his gratuity entitlement for 26 years service period. 5. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=2, 184,000.00 being his redundancy entitlement under Exh. C6. 6. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the cost of this proceedings accessed at =N=100,000.00 5.14. All the sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment, except cost, shall be payable with interest at the rate of 20% per annum from today until final liquidation. 5.15. Judgment is entered accordingly. ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge