Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction & Claims 1. Mr. Aminu Oluwole Rasheed the Claimant approached this Court by his Form 1 on 5/8/14 and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - a. The sum of Three Hundred Thousand (=N=300,000.00) being the total sum of the Claimant's salary from the month of January, 2014 to May and inclusive of one month's salary in lieu of notice of the termination of his employment. b. The sum total of 40% interest on the sum in claim (a) above from May of 2014 till the date of Judgment of this Honourable Court and 20% interest rate thereafter till the execution of Judgment. c. The sum of Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=50,000.00) as cost of action. 2. Claimant's Form 1 was accompanied by statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, verifying affidavit and list as well as copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. Notwithstanding that the Defendant was served as required, it did not file any defence process. Defendant was however represented in Court on 20/4/15. Case of the Claimant 3. Claimant opened his case on 10/2/15. He testified in chief, adopted his witness deposition of 5/8/14 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C4 respectively. 4. The case of the Claimant is that after a series of successful interview with the Defendant he was offered employment by the Defendant via a letter dated 3/1/14; that by the terms contained in the letter he was to be paid =N=50,000.00 monthly; that on resumption of office he was issued an identity card setting out his position with the Defendant including a letter describing his job and position; that he undertook his new employment with all diligence and sense of responsibility until 26/5/14 when he was invited for a meeting by the Executive Director and was informed that his services were no longer required by the Company and that his employment was terminated with immediate effect; that from 3/1/14 when he resumed duties till 26/5/14 when his employment was terminated, he was not paid his monthly salary of =N=50,000.00; that when demanded for his outstanding salaries he was told he would be paid when the Defendant's Chairman returned from his foreign trip; that when the Chairman returned, the Chairman informed him that the sum of =N=50,000.00 would be given to him to cover the entire period of 5 months that he had worked for the Defendant; that he refused the said sum of =N=50,000.00; that he was entitled to a total sum of 5 months salaries and a minimum of one month salary in lieu of notice of termination which brings his total entitlement to =N=300,000.00; that the Defendant refused to give him a Contract of Service but Defendant refused to do so; that he employed the services of A. B. Kasumu Chambers to demand for his entitlement from the Defendant and that he has suffered serious hardship since January 2014 as he has had to send his wife and new born baby to the village as he had no means of supporting his family without his salary and that the action of the Defendant could only be described as wicked, insensitive and a deliberate attempt to defraud him. 5. At the conclusion of evidence in chief, case was adjourned to 20/4/15 for cross examination and defence. On that day, the Defendant was represented by one J. O. Uttute of Counsel who pleaded for time to enable parties settle out of Court. Learned Counsel did not appear in Court after that day. Case was adjourned to 26/5/15, 21/9/15, 11/11/15, 2/2/16, 11/4/16, 25/5/16 to enable the Defendant defend this case. Hence there was no cross examination. 6. Again, both the Claimant and the Defendant did not file any final written addresses. Decision 7. This is a 2014 matter. I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by the Claimant in this case. Though had opportunity to do so, the Defendant did not file any process and indeed did not defence this suit. Both sides did not file any final written addresses. I heard the oral testimonies of the Claimant at trial. I also carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered by the Claimant and admitted by this Court. Having done all this, I set down a lone issue for determination thus- Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he sought. 8. I have noted before now that the Defendant did not defend this suit though it had ample opportunities to do so. A party cannot be compelled to defend a suit against it. The important thing is for such a party to have notice of an action in which he is named a Defendant. Where a party named as a Defendant and served Court processes elects not to indicate his desire to defend the suit he may merely be saying that he has no interest in the matter and/or that he is ready to be bound by whatever the Court arrives at after trial on the merit. Notwithstanding the fact that a suit is not defended, the Claimant still has the burden to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought. For, it is trite that he who asserts must prove his assertion. This principle has support both in the statute law as well as plethora of judicial decisions. 9. It is important to also state here and at this stage that neither the Claimant nor the Defendant filed any final written addresses. Now, Order 45, National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules, 2017 deals with filing of final written addresses. The applicable Order simply provides for content and format of written addresses, summary and conclusion of written addresses as so on. There is no provision within that order compelling parties to file final written addresses. There is also no provision fo consequences to follow failure of parties to file final written addresses or what options are left to the Court both parties failed and/or neglected to file final written addresses. It is only in Rule 12 of Order 45 of the Rules of this Court that - ''The Court may, on the failure or refusal of the Defendant to file his Final Written Address where the Claimant has filed his or her Final Address within the twenty-one (21) day or time limit ordered by the Court, may foreclose the Defendant from filing his or her Final Written Address except he or she gives cogent and compelling reason for his or her inability to do so within the time limit by the Court or by these Rules''. 10. ''Final Addresses by Counsel in a case'' noted the Court in Mobil Producing (Nig) Unlimited v. Ayeni & Ors (2019) LPELR ''are designed to assist the Court in readily ascertaining the material and relevant points arising in the case and the applicable law, to the issues in order to enable it arrive at a just decision. Final Addresses are simply to state in brief, concisely and precisely, the relevant facts, the issues, points and applicable principles of law required for the determination of the case, on the merit and in substantial justice by the Court''. 11. In Akinmosin v. Makinde & Anor. (2012) LPELR-19686 the Court of Appeal down played the value or importance of final written addresses in the just determination of a case when it said ''It is a known fact that final addresses, no matter how brilliant or alluring, cannot form or be valued as evidence nor can they supplant the status of evidence in the proceedings, Olufosoye v. Fakorede (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt 272), 747, 746; Nwadairo v. SPDC (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 322, 339; Odebeko v. Fowler (1993) 1 NWLR (Pt. 308) 637; Ishola v. Ajiboye (1998) 1 NWLR (Pt. 532) 71, 93; Aro v. Aro (2000) 14 WRN 51, 65." 12. In fact appellate judicial authorities support the position that where the facts are straight forward and in the main, remain uncontested, with the plaintiff requiring minimum proof, the trial judge could as well and would be free to dispense with final addresses from the learned counsel for the parties. After all, cogent and credible evidence determine cases and not the advocacy or brilliance of counsel as espoused in an address which is but a poor substitute for properly adduced evidence before a trial court. See Oniga Ogar Onah v. Chief (Sir) Linus E. Okom (2011) LPELR-9057 (cA). 13. This case was adjourned for the learned Counsel on either side to file for the adoption of their final written addresses on 26/10/16. The matter was subsequently adjourned to 30/1/17, 27/3/17, 3/7/17, 11/10/17, 28/11/17, 2/2/18, 7/5/18 and 11/7/18. Both parties did not file any final written address. Thus on 6/2/2020, the Court dispensed with the need for final written addresses taking cognizance of the clear and straightforward nature of the case couple with the fact that it is not contested. 14. Now coming to the sole issue set down for the determination of this case - Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs he sought. In order to be entitled to all or any of the reliefs sought, the burden is on the Claimant to adduce sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of his case. The burden does not shift simply because the Defendant did not defend this suit. The required credible and cogent evidence may be both oral or documentary or both. In support of his case, Claimant testified in chief and tendered 4 exhibits. Exh. C2 was his offer of employment letter dated 3/1/14. That exhibit indicated that the monthly remuneration of the Claimant is =N=50,000.00. the employment became effective on 3/1/14. Exh. C1 was Claimant's staff identity card while with the Defendant. On the other hand, Exh. C4 was Claimant's Solicitor's letter making demand for the payment of Claimant's outstanding salary at the rate of =N=50,000.00 and a month salary in lieu of notice of termination. The evidence led by the Claimant remained unchallenged in any guise or form. For reasons best known to the Defendant it elected not to defend this suit. It must therefore be deemed to be ready to abide by the consequences of its inaction. It is a trite law that a trial Court is obliged to rely on an unchallenged piece of evidence in the just determination of a case before it. See Mabamije v. Otto v. Otto (2016) LPELR (SC). It is my finding that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of =N=250,000.00 being his outstanding and unpaid salary for the months of January to May 2014. The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay the said sum over to the Claimant forthwith. 15. Secondly, Claimant was not served any notice of termination of his employment. Indeed his evidence was that his employment was terminated with immediate effect. Exh. C2 did not indicate the length of notice required for either party to terminate the contract of employment between the parties. However, even in circumstances as such, a reasonable notice is expected to be served. I hold the length of a reasonable notice to be a month. Not having served the Claimant a month notice of termination, the Defendant is here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 being Claimant's one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment. 16. Claimant also sought payment to him of the sum of the sum total of 40% interest on the sum in claim (a) above from May of 2014 till the date of Judgment of this Honourable Court and 20% interest rate thereafter till the execution of Judgment. Claimant did not adduce evidence to support this head of claim. Was there an agreement between the parties for the rate of interest to be paid from the date the sum became due? I have no answer to this. In the absence of proof, this head of claim is refused and dismissed. 17. Cost, it is said, follows events. The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 as cost of this action. 18. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=250,000.00 being his outstanding and unpaid salaries for the months of January to May 2014 forthwith. 2. The Defendant is here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 being Claimant's one month salary in lieu of notice of termination of his employment. 3. The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 as cost of this action. 4. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. 19. Judgment is entered accordingly. __________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge