Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims 1.1. On 19/1/16, Claimant approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint, statement facts, witness deposition, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial and sought the following reliefs - 1. Declaration that the 1st Defendant employed the Claimant as its Accountant only on 10th June, 2008, but appointed/engaged (used) him as both its Accountant and Head of Administration (dual appointment/use) after resumption of duties, whereas it paid him the salary/allowances of Accountant only, in the sum of =N=50,000.00, per month, during his said employment/appointment, between 10th June, 2008 to 30th June, 2015, which was exploitative. 2. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to his salary/allowance of both Accountant/Head of Administration in the Defendant’s employment between 10th June 2008 to 30th November 2015, in the sum of =N=80,000.00, per month. 3. A Declaration that the Queries issued by the Defendants to the Claimant are invalid and his subsequent purported dismissal by the Defendants from their employment, on the Report of Enquiry constituted by them, on criminal allegations against him, because the queries were not issued by an authorised or proper person and the Panel not being a court of law, are wrongful, invalid, incompetent, improper, unlawful, null and void and to no effect whatsoever and therefore he is still in the 1st Defendant’s employment. 4A. An Order directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant to his position as Accountant/Administration Head in the 1st Defendant’s Hospital and retire/terminate his employment, with full benefits; and payment of his salary/allowances and other entitlement due to him, up till date, i.e., i. Salary/Allowances arrears as Accountant for July-November, 2015 at =N=50,000.00 per month, save October 2015, which is =N=25, 000.00, thus- =N=225,000.00 ii. Salary/Allowances arrears as Head of Administration from June, 2008- November, 2015 at =N=30,000.00 per month, thus =N=2,700,000.00; iii. gratuity in the sum of =N=56,250; iv. annual leave allowance in the sum of =N=40,000.00 and; 3 months’ pay in lieu of notice in the sum of =N=150,000.00, all totaling the sum of =N=3,127,250.00 (Three Million, One Hundred & Twenty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred & Fifty Naira) only. OR ALTERNATIVELY B. i salary/allowances arrears as Accountant for July-November, 2015 at =N=50,000.00 per month, save October 2015, which is =N=25,000.00 thus - =N=225,000.00. ii. salary/allowances arrears as Head of Administration from June 2008- November 2015 at =N=30,000.00 per month in the total sum of =N=2,925,000.00 (Two Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty-Five Thousand Naira) only. 5A. 21% interest per annum on =N=3,127,250.00, with effect from 10th June 2008 until the Judgment is delivered and 10% interest per annum on the total Judgment sum, until liquidated. OR ALTERNATIVELY B. 21% interest per annum on =N=2,925,000.00, with effect from 10th June 2008 until the Judgment is delivered and 10% interest per annum on the total Judgment sum, until liquidated. 6. Damages in the total sum of =N=5,000,000.00, being special, general, punitive, exemplary/aggravated damages, for the breach of contract and breach of the Defendants’ Staff Conditions of Service, by the Defendants’ act of refusal to pay him his aforesaid salary/allowances (debt); and his wrongful and unlawful dismissal, from the 1st Defendant’s employment, which caused the Claimant to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, ridicule, injury, loss of honour, respect, unnecessary litigation expenses, dignity, pride, prestige, integrity, etc. 1.2. By their Amended Statement of Defence filed on 30/9/16, the Defendants denied the claims any liability safe for salaries for the months of July to November 2015. 2. Case of the Claimant 2.1. Claimant opened his case on 7/11/18 and testified as CW1, adopted his witness depositions of 19/1/16, 11/10/16 and 3/5/17 as his evidence in chief and tendered 17 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. DU1 - Exh. DU17. 2.2. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his evidence in chief exhibits tendered and admitted is that he was in 2008 employed by the 1st Defendant as its Accountant by a letter of appointment; that upon resumption, he was saddled with the additional responsibility as Head of Administration; that he was only remunerated and paid salary as Accountant; that the Defendant owed him arrears of salaries & allowances as Accountant for the months of July, August, September and November 2015 at =N=50,000.00 per month and =N=25,000.00 for the month of October 2015; that the Defendants owed him arrears of salaries and allowances as its Head of Administration from June 2008 to 3oth November 2015 at the rate of =N=30,000.00 per month; that though he kept demanding since 2008, the Defendants have refused to pay him same till date; that the refusal of the Defendants to pay him his arrears of salaries and allowances is a breach of contract which deprived him of fulfilling his financial responsibilities and obligations both specially and generally; that the prosecution of this case costs him the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 as professional fees to his Counsel aside from =N=10,000.00 as appearance allowance per appearance and that the conduct of the Defendants against him are exploitative, deliberate and unjustified. 2.3. Under cross examination on 7/11/16, CW1 stated that Exh. DU17 was the only letter he received from the 1st Defendant; that he acted as Head of Administration; that there was no letter to that effect for him to act in that capacity; that he knew the 2nd & 3rd Defendants as part of the Directors of the 1st Defendant; that 1st Defendant is a limited liability company; that Defendants have been paying his salaries but for the last 5 months. 2.4. Witness added that he holds a B.Sc in Accounting from the University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus; that he is also a qualified Chartered Accountant; that it was on that basis that the 1st Defendant employed him; that there is no document stating that he is entitled to =N=30,000.00 a month as allowance for Head of Administration; that as an Accountant he is in charge of 1st Defendant's finances; that he does not know all customers of the 1st Defendant; that Cashier works under his supervision; that receipts by Cashier come directly to him; that other staff under him are Public Relation Officer and the Chief Billing Officer; that he was in charge of preparing records for purpose of auditing for 1st Defendant; that financial records of limited company ought to be prepared every year; that 1st defendant was owing the Auditor and this caused delay of auditing; that the delay in preparing reports for audit was due to heavy workload on him as he worked both as Accountant and Administrative Manager; that 1st Defendant issued him some queries while with among which was the query dated 30/3/15; that he answered the queries issued to him; that he knew one Mr. Samuel Okotie; that Okotie's family paid him some money when Okotie was hospitalised. Witness added that 1st Defendant had an Ambulance with kits; that he used the Ambulance for official matters; that there was no document to the effect that the audit firm refused to audit due to non-payment of their fees and that he was issued queries on 11/5/15, 14/10/15, 27/10/15, 9/11/15 and 4/11/15. 2.5. According to the witness, a Director of the 1st Defendant issued his letter of appointment; that he was an employee of the 1st Defendant; that it was not his schedule to increase the salary of an employee and that he never did and that drugs were purchased from impress given to the office. 3. Case of the Defendants 3.1. The Defendants commenced the defence of the case against them on 7/11/18 when one J. A. Akinmoladun who testified for them as DW1 adopted his witness deposition of 5/11/18 as his evidence in chief, tendered 3 documents as exhibits and was cross examined. The 4 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1 - Exh. D4 respectively. 3.2. The case of the Defendants as revealed from their pleadings and evidence led is that Claimant was employed by the 1st Defendant as Accountant effective from 9/6/08 by an offer letter; that Claimant handled some administrative responsibility related to his employment while working with the 1st Defendant; that Claimant was never appointed as Head of Administration of 1st Defendant; that Claimant is yet to collect his salary and allowances at the rate of =N=50,000.00 for the months of July, August, September and November 2015 and =N=25,000.00 for the month of October 2015 totaling =N=225,000.00; that the Claimant throughout his period of service with the 1st Defendant did not complain of the occasional administrative related part of his duties; that the Defendants did not at any time promise to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=30,000.00 as Head of Administration as he was never employed in that capacity; that after a series of queries, admission of reduced efficiency by the Claimant and consequent upon the report of Disciplinary Panel the proceedings of which Claimant attended, Claimant's appointment was terminated and that the case of the Claimant lacks merit and should be dismissed. 3.3. Under cross examination on 24/1/19, DW1 testified that he is conversant with the case; that it was not the responsibility of the Claimant but that of the Directors to prepare Audit Reports; that it is not correct that auditor can undertake preparation of account of a Company for fees before deducting the same account; that Auditors are trained Accountants; that his company carried out 1st Defendant's financial statement for 2011-2014 and reported on same; that Claimant could not have singlehandedly invited his firm to 1st Defendant; that Claimant did not supply all that were required for proper auditing and the Auditors reported accordingly; that his firm was being owed by the 1st Defendant; that it is natural in business ventures for one to make profit or loss; that it is not correct that Auditors Report exonerated the Claimant of any fault or failings; that during the sitting of the Panel the 2nd Defendant was present; that Claimant was not represented by a Legal Practitioner at the Panel; that Claimant was not obliged a copy of the Disciplinary Report like any other staff and that there was only one report prepared by the Legal Department. 3.4. Twinkle Onuwaiye testified as DW2 on 21/3/19. Witness adopted his deposition of 30/9/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 10 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D5 - Exh. D14 respectively. 3.5. While being cross examined, DW2 testified that it was not his duty to prepare the financial statement of account of the 1st Defendant; that by Exh. D3 it is the duty of the Directors to prepare the financial statement of account; that he could not remember if Mrs. Awoyemi was the Store Keeper at the time; that there were only 7 and not 9 people on the Management Team of the 1st Defendant at the time; that the Audit Report indicted the Claimant; that the 1st Defendant sent for the Claimant to come for his salary but did not turn up; that he was on the Panel when it sat; that he is not an Accountant and does not know the revenue generated weekly on drug purchased by the 1st Defendant; that there was an Internal Audit Department in the 1st Defendant and the Accountant was in charge of it; that Dr. Agboola was the Medical Superintendent of the 1st Defendant at the time; that Salary payroll was usually prepared by the Billing officer and that the former Account of the 1st Defendant worked for about 19 years he left and Claimant was employed. 4. Final Addresses of learned Counsel 4.1. At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court, learned Counsel to the Defendants filed a 9-page final written address on 17/7/19. In it learned Counsel set down 2 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant has been able to prove that he was employed as both the 1st Defendant's Accountant and Head of Administration and entitled to the accompanying remuneration. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 4.2. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the crux of Claimant's case is that he was engaged by the 1st Defendant as its Accountant and further engaged as its Head of Administration but that Claimant did not tender any document or place any material before the Court to prove that he was so appointed; that on the trite law that he who asserts must prove, Claimant has failed to prove his assertion citing Oluyede v. Access Bank Plc (2015)17 NWLR (Pt. 1489) 596 at 607 & Sections 131 & 132, Evidence Act, 2011. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendants. 4.3. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that an employer has the discretion to hire and fire its employees for good reason, for bad reason or for no reason at all in a master/servant relationship which is applicable to the Claimant in the instant case citing Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 9) at 602; that Claimant has the burden of proving that his employment was wrongfully terminated by placing before the Court the terms and conditions of his contract of employment and proving in what manner the said terms were breached citing Oforishe v. Nigerian Gas Company Limited (2018)2 NWLR (Pt. 1602) 35 at 44 but that throughout the trial of this case Claimant failed to prove the wrongful termination of his employment thereby robbing him of any perceived entitlement to damages or any entitlement from the Defendants; that there is evidence of series of queries issued to the Claimant and the report of a Panel in which he appeared; that the rate of interest claimed is wildly speculative and does not arise from his employment or a transaction while the basis for same was not proved citing Oluyede v. Access Bank Plc (supra); that the evidence led by the Claimant in his pleadings is at variance with his evidence in chief at trial and that Claimant indeed admitted under cross examination that there was no proof that he was ever employed as the 1st Defendant's head of Administration. Finally, learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the suit being nothing more than a series of allegations and claims which lacked proof citing Central Bank of Nigeria v. Aribo. 4.4. A 29-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Claimant on 24/7/19. It was dated the same date. In it learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination - 1. Did the Defendants comply with the provision of the 1st Defendant's Terms & Conditions of Service which bounded the parties thereto, in issuing Letters of Queries, Suspension and subsequent dismissal of the Claimant from its employment/service. 2. If this Honourable Courts holds that the answer to issue 1 is in the negative: What is the effect? Its effect is that the Claimant remains in the employment of the 1st Defendant at all material times, until his employment/appointment is properly, validly and legally terminated/determined. 3. Was the Claimant liable on the Defendants' allegations/excuses leveled against him, to warrant his being suspended and dismissed. 4. Is the Claimant entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. 4.5. In arguing issues 1 & 2 together, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of Exh. DU1 in that an unauthorised person that is 2nd Defendant issued queries, suspension and eventual dismissal of the Claimant; that the effect of non-compliance with Exh. DU1 is that the Claimant remains in the employment of the 1st Defendant until the appointment is properly determined citing Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 684; that DW1 admitted that at the material time, the Medical Superintendent who was the other person apart from the Claimant authorised to issue queries, suspend and dismiss 1st Defendant erring staff was around yet 2nd Defendant did so. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve these issues in favor of the Claimant and order his reinstatement. 4.6. On issue 3, Counsel submitted that Claimant was not liable on the allegations leveled against him by the Defendants to warrant his suspension and dismissal; that it was the statutory responsibility of the 2nd & 3rd Defendants to prepare the Financial Statements for audit purposes which responsibility was passed on to the Claimant; that Claimant prepared the records and accounts used for the auditing exercise; that the audit report did not indict the Claimant and that the sum of =N=6 Million mentioned in Exh. DU, Exh. DU11, Exh. D2 & Exh. D3 respectively was expended on the purchase of drugs for 1st Defendant's patients' use and which generated over 25% profit. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant. 4.7. On whether Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought, learned Counsel submitted that a labourer is worthy of his hire and should be paid immediately; that the Defendants benefitted from the professional services of the Claimant. Counsel referred to the evidence of the Claimant and submitted that on the basis of evidence led Claimant is entitled to his arrears of salaries including damages as well as interest on the judgment sum. Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs as sought by the Claimant. 4.8. On 14/8/19, learned Counsel to the Defendants filed a reply address on points of law. 5. Decision 5.1. I have carefully read and understood all the processes as filed by learned Counsel on either side of this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in the course of trial. Having done all this, I set down the following issues for the just determination of this case as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant was employed as 1st Defendant's Head of Administration to be entitled to remunerations for that office. 2. Whether the employment of the Claimant was validly terminated in compliance with the terms and conditions of engagement. 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to any or all the reliefs sought in this case. 5.2. The fact of appointment and the discharge of the duties of an office constitute the basis for the payment of salary for the particular office. Both facts may be established expressly by an instrument of appointment such as a letter of appointment which may state expressly the office and the responsibilities of the office. It is a trite law a document speaks for itself and as Mustapha JCA pointed out in Edeh v. Mac-Tino (Nig.) Limited (2018)LPELR (CA), oral evidence cannot be admitted to contradict, alter, add to or vary a contract or document unless such evidence falls within any of the matters that may be proved by such oral evidence by virtue of the provisions thereto. The provisions only permits evidence which will not be inconsistent with the terms of the relevant contract or document; see also Ekwunife v. Wayne (W.A) Ltd (1989) 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422 at 440 - 441 and Macaulay v. NAL Merchant Bank Limited (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.144) 283 at 311. It is also the law that indeed documentary evidence is a more reliable and preferred specie of evidence of the contents of a document. See Collins Commermex Nigeria Limited & Anor. v. Skye Bank Plc (2019)LPELR (CA).The position of the Claimant here is that he was employed both as Accountant and Head of Administration of the 1st Defendant; that he discharged the official responsibilities of both offices but that while he was remunerated for the office of Accountant, he was not so remunerated for the office of the Head of Administration. It has always been the position of the adjudicatory process in this country that he who asserts must prove the assertion. See Chairman, EFCC & Anor. Littlechild & Anor. (2015)LPELR-25199 (CA). 5.3. In proof of his assertion therefore, Claimant tendered, among others, Exh. DU17. That exhibit was his letter of Offer of Appointment. It was dated 10/6/08. By that exhibit the position offered to the Claimant was Accountant. The remuneration attached to the office was also stated in the exhibit. My finding on this issue is that Claimant was employed only as Accountant of the 1st Defendant and not as Head of Administration or any other position and that his entitlement to salary and allowances is certainly limited to that office and that office alone. It was the argument of the Claimant that he indeed was performing the duties of that office. For a start I should indicate that in all the 14 exhibits tendered by the Defendants, the Defendants did not at any time ever referred to the Claimant as Head of Administration or as Administration Manager. Secondly, in all the correspondences from the Defendants to the Claimant, the correspondences were always addressed to the Accounts Department. However, it was the practice of the Claimant to refer to himself in official correspondences emanating from him to the Defendants or other members of staff as Accounts/Admin Manager. See for instance Exh. DU10, Exh. DU11, Exh. DU12, Exh. DU13 and Exh. DU16. 5.4. Claimant was not an Account Manager or Admin Manager or Head of Administration of the 1st Defendant. He was employed only as Accountant. It would seem and that is the way I see it too that all that the Claimant did was to ascribe to himself an expanded, enhanced and increased areas of influence with the Defendants. He simply dressed himself in a borrowed robe. I thus resolve the issue in favour of the Defendants and against the Claimant. I hold that Claimant was only employed as Accountant and that he was not and is not entitled to be paid any salary or allowances as Head of Administration of the 1st Defendant. 5.5. The second issue for determination is whether the employment of the Claimant was validly terminated in compliance with the terms and conditions of engagement. Claimant was dismissed from the services of the 1st Defendant by Exh. DU6 dated 30/11/15. By the exhibit, Claimant was dismissed ''Sequel to the Administrative panel and consequent upon the report of the Audit panel employed by the management of Oke-Ado Hospital which found out that you are involved in financial irregularities and malpractices which is contrary to section 43 of the conditions of service''. In an instant as this case where an employee complains that his employment was not properly terminated, it is for that employee to lay before the Court the terms and conditions of his engagement indicating in particular who has the power to truncate his employment and failure to comply with the same. See Mighty Plastic Industry Limited v. Okeke (2016) LPELR (CA). 5.6. In proof of his assertion, Claimant tendered Exh. DU1 - Staff Conditions of Service of the 1st Defendant. Placing reliance on paragraphs 37-39, 42 & 43 learned Counsel to the Claimant had argued that non-compliance with these provisions rendered queries issued, suspension and eventual dismissal ''invalid, ineffective, improper and wrongful''. The basis of that position according to Claimant was that the Queries issued to him were not issued by Head of Department and that the Accounts & Administration Manager did not counter sign the same as required by paragraph 39 of Exh. DU1. Claimant knew that there was no staff of the 1st Defendant occupying the office of Accounts & Administration Manager. Indeed, that was the same office he single-handedly ascribed to himself. Thus it was the expectation and argument of the learned Counsel to the Claimant that any queries to the Claimant must be counter signed by the same Claimant for it to be valid and effective. There is evidence to the effect that several queries were issued to the Claimant. See Exh.D5, D6, D9, D10, D11 & DU2. They were all issued by the Executive Director of the 1st Defendant. Again, Exh. DU3 - Letter of Suspension as well as Exh. DU6 - Letter of Dismissal were signed by the Executive Director of the 1st Defendant. 5.7. I dare say that an Executive Director is a rather senior position of a corporate body with robust responsibilities in the management and administration of company. Claimant did not contend that the queries were not issued to him or that he was not afforded opportunities to defend himself. Indeed, in his evidence in chief Claimant had stated thus - ''The Defendants issued 3 (Three) queries on me dated 14th, 27th October & 4th November, 2015. which I replied on 14th, 28th October & 5th November, 2015, respectively. I was later invited to appear before a panel of Enquiry constituted by them on 16th, November, 2015, by their letter of 9th November, 2015, which I honoured, having earlier been suspended for 2 (Two) weeks - 14th - 28th October, 2015, by their letter of 14th October, 2015''. See Claimant's witness deposition of 19/1/16. 5.8. The position adopted by the Claimant and submissions on his behalf tend toward the realization of technical justice as opposed to substantial justice. Technical justice is no justice. If it is at all, then it a justice with question mark. Another name for technical justice is simply injustice. The Court of law is no longer disposed towards technical justice. The point was aptly and succinctly made by Abiru JCA in Usman v. Tamadena & Co, Limited & Ors. (2015) LPELR-40376 (CA) in the following words - ''The Courts have shifted away from the orthodox method of narrow technical approach to justice and the weight of judicial opinion is now predominantly in favour of the Court doing substantial justice, as opposed to technical justice. This is because technical justice, in reality, is not justice but a caricature of it. It is justice in inverted commas and not justice synonymous with the principles of equity and fair play''. 5.9. His lordship was to further quote the immortal words of Oputa, JSC in Bello v. Oyo State (1986) 5 NWLR (Pt 45) 826 at 886 to further drive home the point being made as follows - ''The picture of law and its technical rules triumphant and justice prostrate may no doubt have its admirers. But the spirit of justice does not reside in forms, formalities nor in technicalities nor is the triumph of the administration of justice to be found in successfully picking one's way between pitfalls of technicality. Law and its technical rules ought to be a handmaid to justice..." 5.10. It is obvious that the doing of technical justice has since been confined to the dustbin of history and the present quest is to do substantial justice. I have no hesitation in holding that the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant was validly carried out in accordance with his terms and conditions of engagement. 5.11. The third and final issue for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to any or all the reliefs sought in this case. Claimant sought 6 main reliefs though in alternative. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the 1st Defendant employed the Claimant as its Accountant only on 10th June, 2008, but appointed/engaged (used) him as both its Accountant and Head of Administration (dual appointment/use) after resumption of duties, whereas it paid him the salary/allowances of Accountant only, in the sum of =N=50,000.00, per month, during his said employment/appointment, between 10th June, 2008 to 30th June, 2015, which was exploitative. I have found while resolving issue 1 as set down for determination that Claimant was only appointed as Accountant of the 1st Defendant and not additionally as Head of Administration. To the extent therefore that Claimant sought declaration respecting his alleged appointment as Head of Administration, I refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof. Consequent upon this holding therefore I refuse the second prayer and hold Claimant is not entitled to a declaration that he is entitled to his salary/allowance of both Accountant/Head of Administration in the Defendant’s employment between 10th June 2008 and 30th November 2015, in the sum of =N=80,000.00, per month. 5.12. The third relief is for a declaration that the Queries issued by the Defendants to him are invalid and his subsequent purported dismissal by the Defendants from their employment, on the Report of Enquiry constituted by them, on criminal allegations against him, because the queries were not issued by an authorised or proper person and the Panel not being a court of law, are wrongful, invalid, incompetent, improper, unlawful, null and void and to no effect whatsoever and therefore he is still in the 1st Defendant’s employment. This Court has held that the dismissal of the Claimant resulting from several queries issued and served on him and the report of the Panel of Enquiry that investigated the allegations leveled against him and for which he was afforded opportunity to defend himself was valid. It is important to indeed also bring to the fore the fact that Claimant in his answers to the various queries issued to him admitted his failings and pleaded to change positively. I thus refuse and dismiss this relief as well for lacking in merit. 5.13. In his relief 4, Claimant sought an order directing the Defendants to reinstate him to his position as Accountant/Administration Head in the 1st Defendant’s Hospital and retire/terminate his employment, with full benefits; and payment of his salary/allowances and other entitlement due to him, up till date. This Court has found that the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant was validly done in accordance with the terms and conditions of engagement between the parties. To therefore order reinstatement is completely out of it. I therefore refuse and dismiss a prayer for reinstatement. In alternative, Claimant sought payment of his Salary/Allowances arrears as Accountant for July-November, 2015 at =N=50,000.00 per month, save October 2015, which is =N=25, 000.00 totaling =N=225,000.00. In paragraph 5 of its amended statement of defence dated and filed on 30/9/16, the Defendants admitted paragraph 4 of the statement of facts ''... to the extent that the claimant is yet to collect his salary/transport and housing allowance to the tune of =N=50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) per month for the months of July, August, September November 2015 and =N=25,000.00 (Twenty Five Thousand) for the month of October 2015''. In his evidence in chief, DW1 also testified to the effect that Claimant is yet to collect his salary and allowances at the rate of =N=50,000.00 for the months of July, August, September and November 2015 and =N=25,000.00 for the month of October 2015 totaling =N=225,000.00. The law is trite that facts admitted need no further proof. In Ibotile & Ors. Elf Petroleum (Nig.) Ltd (2019)LPELR (CA), Owoade JCA, citing Egbunike & Anor v. ACB Limited (1999) 2 SCNJ 58; Savanah Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Opanubi (1999) 13 NWLR (Pt. 634) 203 and Insurance Brokers of Nigeria v. Atlantic Textiles Manufacturing Co. Limited (1996) 9-10 SCNJ 171 pointed out emphatically that the general principle of law is that admitted facts need no further proof. The 1st Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=225,000.00 being the Claimant's outstanding salary and allowances as admitted by the Defendants. 5.14. In relief 5, Claimant sought payment of 21% interest per annum on =N=3,127,250.00, with effect from 10th June 2008 until the Judgment is delivered and 10% interest per annum on the total Judgment sum, until liquidated. This Court has not found any sum as =N=3,127,250.00 due to the Claimant. Aside from this fact, the basis of the claim for interest and the percentage claimed is not founded. I therefore refuse and dismiss the claim for 21% interest per annum. 5.15. The final relief sought by the Claimant is damages in the total sum of =N=5,000,000.00, being special, general, punitive, exemplary/aggravated damages, for the breach of contract and breach of the Defendants’ Staff Conditions of Service, by the Defendants’ act of refusal to pay him his aforesaid salary/allowances (debt); and his wrongful and unlawful dismissal, from the 1st Defendant’s employment, which caused the Claimant to suffer embarrassment, humiliation, ridicule, injury, loss of honour, respect, unnecessary litigation expenses, dignity, pride, prestige, integrity. 5.16. The need for a Court to award general damages is always predicated on the commission of wrong against a party. Generally speaking, general damages are presumed by law as the direct natural consequence or probable consequence of the act complained of having being averred as suffered in the Plaintiff's pleadings. See U.A.C. of Nigeriav. Madam Irole (2002) ALL FWLR (Pt. 113) 351 at 362-363, Chindo World Wide Limited v. Total Nigeria Plc (2002) ALL FWLR (Pt.116) 959 at 989 and Alh. Uman & Anor. v. Mrs. Owoeye (2003) ALL FWLR (Pt. 152) 38. See also J.I. Efemini & Sons (Nigeria) Limited v. UBA Plc (2018) LPELR (CA). 5.17. On the basis of the facts and the state of the law as at today, the Court has found no wrong it can presume committed against the Claimant to warrant award of general damages in his favour. I thus refuse the award of general damages as sought. 5.18. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. I refuse and dismiss all the declarations sought by the Claimant 2. I hold that Claimant was only employed as Accountant and that he was not and is not entitled to be paid any salary or allowances as Head of Administration of the 1st Defendant. 3. I hold that the employment of the Claimant was validly terminated in compliance with the terms and conditions of engagement. 4. 1st Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=225,000.00 being Claimant's salary and allowances and housing allowance to the tune of =N=50,000.00 (Fifty Thousand Naira) per month for the months of July, August, September November 2015 and =N=25,000.00 (Twenty Five Thousand) for the month of October 2015. 5. I make no order as to cost. 5.19. Judgment is entered accordingly. ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge