Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. The Claimant commenced this action against the Defendant vide a general form of Complaint dated and filed on 4/12/2017. The complaint was accompanied with statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents and photocopies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The Claimant’s claims against the Defendant as endorsed on the Complaint and in the Statement of Facts are as follows: A. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to immediately pay to the Claimant the sum of N128,160 (One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty Naira) only being payment in lieu of notice of termination of the Claimant’s employment. B. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to immediately calculate the Claimant’s severance benefits and pay to the Claimant. C. AN ORDER directing the Defendant to immediately pay to the Claimant the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only being general damages for breach of contract of employment, psychological trauma and/or emotional distress. 2. The claimant testified on 17/7/2018, in proof of his case as CW1. CW1 after identifying his witness statement on oaths sworn on 4th December, 2017, he adopted it as his testimony before the Court. CW1 also tendered three documents in evidence which were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits 1-2, CW1B and CW1C1-2. 3. The case of the claimant as can be gathered from the pleading, witness statement on oath and the oral testimony of CW1, that the claimant was employed by the defendant as security operative on 15th January, 2013, as per exhibit CW1A1-2, dated 15/1/2017. The claimant’s take home salary after deductions is the sum of N42,720 (Forty-Two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Naira) only. It was averred that the claimant was a graduate and bread winner. Under exhibit CW1A1-2, either party may terminate the employment by giving Two (2) weeks’ notice of termination. It was averred that the Claimant, since his employment with the Defendant, carried out his duties over the years with integrity, diligence and competence; and there was never any course for him to be queried by the Defendant or anybody else. 4. However, on 15th August, 2017 the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s employment vide the Defendant’s letter of Termination of Contract of Employment dated 9th August, 2017, citing alleged “Below Average Intelligence Rating & Test Score” as reasons for termination. According to claimant the reasons for the termination is not only ridiculous but false and unjustifiable as the Claimant always exhibited very high competence and intelligence in the discharge of his duties over the years and the reason why he was never queried for any reason at all by the Defendant. The reasons are completely invalid. Moreover, the Defendant did not prove any of them. The claimant alleged that motive for termination is clearly victimization because the Claimant was inherited from another company. 5. Furthermore, the Defendant, is in breach of the Contract of Employment, for terminating the employment of the Claimant with less than a week’s notice. 6. The Claimant averred that he suffered untold hardship, psychological trauma and emotional distress as result of the action of the Defendant in terminating his employment without justifiable reason and without adequate notice. 7. The claimant also averred that it is conventional and reasonable that salaries payment in lieu of notice of termination be given to an employee whose employment is terminated without service of adequate/reasonable notice and severance benefit paid to cushion the effect. 8. On 5th September, 2017, the Claimant instructed his lawyers of Messrs. A. E. Igomu & Co. to issue and serve on the Defendant Letter of Demand. Till date the Defendant has not replied the said letter nor paid a kobo to the Claimant. 9. The claimant was cross-examined on 3/12/2018, wherein he stated that his salary in lieu of notice is not N25,000.00. That he was employed by another company before joining the defendant. That he wrote exam with other staff on intelligence and he did not fail the exam. 10. On 3/7/2019, the court granted the request of the defendant for further cross-examination of CW1. CW1, when further cross-examined testified that he worked with HNB Nigeria Ltd before joining the defendant. He stated that there was screening before he was engaged by the defendant. He stated that his Pension Fund Administrator is IBTC Pension. He stated that after disengagement he was paid N100,000.00 as his pension contribution. That he has one signature; he signed his letter of acceptance of appointment. The witness statement on oath was signed by him at the registry of the court. 11. At the close of the Claimant’s case, counsel for the defendant informed the court that the defendant is not calling any witness; and that the defendant will rest its case on the claimant’s case. Counsel were then ordered to file written addresses beginning with the Claimant, since the defendant did not call any witness. On 4/3/2020, when this matter came up for adoption of final written addresses, the defendant and her counsel were not in court. Consequently, the final written address of the defendant was deemed argued in line with Order 45 rule 7 of the rules of this court. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT. 12. The claimant formulated twin issues for resolution. They are:- I. Whether or not the termination of the Claimant’s employment is not wrongful in law; and II. Whether or not the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability and should succeed in all his claims against the Defendant in this suit 13. ISSUE ONE; Whether or not the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is not wrongful in law. In arguing this issue counsel submitted that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is wrongful in law the Defendant having failed to comply with the terms of employment and having not given good, truthful or valid reasons for the termination. 14. It is the contention of counsel that the position of the law before now and the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Third Alteration Act, 2010) as well as the National Industrial Court Act, 2006, is regulated by the common law principle of master/servant relationship which is that an employer has the prerogative to hire and fire for good, bad or no reason at all. The courts in Nigeria before now have applied the common law principle to the disadvantage of the Nigerian workers or employees. The courts had relied on the harsh and rigid common law procedure of “at will” employment relation, allowing employers to terminate employments for bad or no reason at all. Thus, in Olaniyan V. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 299 @ 685 the Supreme Court held as follows: “A master is at common law entitled to dismiss his servant from his employment for good or bad reasons or for no reason at all.” 15. According to counsel that seemingly settled position above, and as rehashed in a number of court decisions in Nigeria in relation to employment relationships, no longer applies as the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, distinguishing the earlier cases which were decided before or without considering the National Industrial Court Act and the Constitution, has held in recent decisions that an employer can no longer dismiss or terminate an employee’s employment for bad or no reason at all. That is, employees can no longer be lightly discarded (for good, bad or no reason at all) as employers are now required to give valid reasons for determination of the employments of their employees. 16. Thus, where unfair dismissal or termination is proved, an employer can now be held liable and substantial damages awarded. Unfair dismissal or termination is an employment situation wherein an employee is dismissed or terminated from his or her role; and the dismissal or termination is unfair when the reason supplied not being a sufficient one, or if the employer did not follow the correct process for dismissing the employee or terminating the employment. It also applies to cases where the dismissal or termination is due to discrimination or victimization as in this case. On this contention counsel relied on an article published on line at https://lawpadi.com/unfair-dismissal-by-an-employer-your-legal-rights/. 17. It is the contention of counsel that the concept of unfair labour practice is not expressly provided for in the Nigerian Labour Laws. However, the concept has gained recognition through the Nigerian Labour Courts (this Honourable Court) pursuant to Section 254C of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended by the Third Alteration Act, 2010), Section 7 (6) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 as well as the Rules of this Honourable Court which enjoined this Honourable Court to adopt and enforce international best practices and labour conventions in determining labour disputes. One of such international convention which has been enforced by this Court in a number of recent decisions is Article 4 of the International Labour Organisation Convention on Termination of Employment – Convention, 1982 (No. 158) (ILO Convention) which stipulates as follows: “The employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertakings, establishment or service.” 18. Articles 5 and 6 of the ILO Convention listed, inter alia, what shall not constitute a valid reason for termination of employment. The provisions of Articles 4, 5 and 6 of the ILO Convention is a clear departure from the general common law position that an employer has the right to terminate an employee with or without reason even though the termination constitutes a breach of contract. 19. In Mix & Blake V. NUFBTE (2004) 1 NLLR (Pt. 2) 247, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, in its attempt to define what might constitute an unfair labour practice, held thus: “….To be unfair, it must be established that the practice does not conform with best practice in labour circles, as may be enjoined by local and international experience.” 20. The new bold dispensation in labour law in Nigeria started in the case of Petroleum and Natural Gas Senior Staff Association of Nigeria V. Schlumberger Anadrill Nigeria Ltd (2008) 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 164. In that case the Court applied the provision of Article 4 of the ILO Convention and held that the common law principle that gives an employer the right to terminate a contract of employment without reason is unfair labour practice. The Court per Adejumo, J. held as follow: “The respondent also argued that it has the right to terminate the employment of any of its employees for reasons or no reason at all. While we do not have any problem with this at all, the point may be made that globally it is no longer fashionable in industrial relations and practice to terminate an employment without adducing any reason for such a termination.” 21. It is argued by counsel that with the passage of the Third Alteration of the 1999 Constitution in 2010, the National Industrial Court of Nigeria became even more embolden and felt able to declare the current law in respect of labour relation where it held per Adejumo, J. in the case of Godwin Okosi Omoudu V. Prof. Aize Obayan & Anor (Unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/03/2012) that it can never be just where an employer of labour without just and established cause, impugned the integrity of an employee and based on this impugnation, goes ahead to peremptorily terminate his employment. The Court went further to hold that the law has moved from the narrow confines of common law in master/servant relationship to a more proactive approach that secures the rights of both parties to an employment contract. In that case, the Court relied on its inherent powers and awarded five (5) months’ salaries as general damages in addition to one month salary in lieu of notice to the Claimant. 22. Also in the case of Mr. Ebere Onyekachi Aloysius V. Diamond Bank Plc (2015) 58 NLLR 92 it was held as thus: “It is now contrary to international labour standard and international best practice and, therefore, unfair for an employer to terminate the employment of its employee, without any reason or justifiable reason connected with the performance of the employee’s work.” 23. In the same vein, in a recent Judgment of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria, handed down in the case of Afolayan Aderonke V. Skye Bank (Unreported Suit No. NICN/IB/08/2015, Judgment delivered on 17th May, 2017) the Court reiterated the new dispensation in the determination of contracts of employment that only upon valid reason shall employment contract be determined by an employer. See also Mariam V. University of Ilorin Teaching Hospital Management Board (Unreported, Suit No. NICN/LA/359/2012). 24. It is the contention of counsel that what constitutes valid reason for termination of employment is a question of fact to be determined on case by case basis. In the instant case, it is established beyond doubt that the notice of termination given to the Claimant fell short of the length stipulated in the Exhibit CW1-1. It is also established beyond doubt that the reasons supplied for the termination of the Claimant’s employment are false as the Defendant failed to lead any iota of evidence to prove same. The reasons no doubt are invalid and not justifiable. The Claimant is sound intellectually and never failed any test exercise. It is clear that the motive behind the termination of the Claimant’s employment is victimization owing to the fact that the Claimant was inherited from another company by the Defendant. Motive of victimization is clearly an invalid reason for termination of contract of employment. 25. Counsel urged the Court to resolve the first issue formulated above in favour of the Claimant and hold that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant without reasonable notice and for victimization motive is wrongful in law. 26. ISSUE B: Whether or not the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability and should succeed in all his claims against the Defendant in this suit. it is the contention of counsel that the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability and ought to succeed in all his claims against the Defendant. Counsel submitted that facts admitted need no further proof. See Achimugu V. Minister of FCT& Anor (1998) 11 NWLR (PT.574) 467 at 477 per Ejiwumi, JCA (as he then was); Iriri V. Erhurhobara (1991) 22 NSCC (Pt.1) 314 at 321, where the Supreme Court (per Olatawura, JSC (as he then was) held thus: “Where the evidence of a witness is not inadmissible in law, uncontroverted and unchallenged, a court of law can act on it and accept it as a true version of the case it seeks to support.” 27. It is contended that the standard of proof required of the Claimant in this case, in establishing his claims, is minimal proof, the Defendant haven not offered any evidence at all in rebuttal of the Claimant’s case. In the case of Nwabuoku V. Ottih (1961) 1 All NLR 987, it was held thus: “It is a well-established principle that where evidence called by a Plaintiff in a civil case is neither challenged nor contradicted, the onus of proof on him is discharged on a minimal proof.” 28. Counsel contended that credibly, and without doubt, the Claimant has proved his case beyond minimal proof. The Claimant has sufficiently established before this Honorable Court by way of credible evidence that the termination of his employment was wrong and damages flew therefrom and ought to be awarded all the reliefs claimed. See the cases of Iyere V. BFFM Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt.119) 300 @ 345 and 347; Dare V. Faybamila (2009) 14 NWLR (Pt.1160) 177 @ 202; and C &C Construction Co. Ltd V. Okhai (2003) 18 NWLR (Pt.851) 79@ 105-106. 29. It is the contention of counsel that the Defendant having not joined issues with the Claimant by way of pleading and having not testified in the proceeding in rebuttal of the Claimant’s evidence has clearly admitted the facts as put forward by the Claimant. It is further argued that the Claimant has demonstrated sufficiently with credible evidence that the Defendant wrongfully terminated his employment with the defendant, thereby suffered damages. The Defendant did not offer any evidence at all in rebuttal of the several assertion that the termination is wrongful and that there is international best practice inuring to his favour. 30. It is also argued that the Defendant did not reply Exhibit CW1-3 a formal demand letter. It is good law that business letters deserved to be replied unlike social correspondence. Thus, the failure to reply a business letter amounts to admission of facts stated therein on the principle that what is not denied is deemed admitted. See Trade Bank Plc V. Khaled Barakat Chami (2003) 13 NWLR (Pt. 836) 219 – 220, paragraphs E-A. 31. On relief (A) claimed, it is submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the sum of N128,160 (One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand, One Hundred and Sixty Naira) only being payment in lieu of notice of termination of the Claimant’s employment. It is pertinent to state here that Exhibit CW1A1-2, did not provide for how much will be paid where the employment is terminated without the prerequisite notice served in breach of Clause 2 of the Exhibit. The best practice in the circumstance is to award three months salaries in lieu of notice, the Claimant having put in more than 3 years into the service of the Defendant and given the small salary amount. Three months salaries are reasonable in the circumstance. Any amount less than three month will not be fair to the Claimant. 32. On relief (B) claimed, it is contended that the Claimant is entitled to payment of severance benefits of at least 7.5% (Seven and half percent) of the Claimant’s salaries from February, 2013 to August, 2017 from the Defendant. Although there is no provision for payment of severance benefit in Exhibit CW1A1-2, payment of severance benefits is now an international best practice where an employment is terminated without the fault of the employee. Several jurisdictions all over the world now enforce the provision of Article 12 of the ILO Convention to award severance benefits even if there is no express provision for payment of severance payment in the contract of employment. The payment is to cushion the effect of the sudden disengagement as the employee may not be prepared for it. Article 12 (1) of the ILO Convention provides thus: “(1) A worker whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled, in accordance with national law and practice, to – A severance allowance or other separation benefits, the amount of which shall be based inter alia on length of service and the level of wages, and paid directly by the employer or by a fund constituted by employers’ contributions; or Benefits from unemployment insurance or assistance or other forms of social security, such as old age or invalidity benefits, under the normal conditions to which such benefits are subject; or A combination of such allowance and benefits.” 33. On relief (C) claimed, it is submitted that the termination of the Claimant’s employment being wrongful and without justification, the Claimant is entitled to the full sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only being general damages for breach of contract of employment, psychological trauma and/or emotional distress. Article 10 of the ILO Convention, being the international best practice on the issue, provides as follows: “If the bodies referred to in Article 8 of this Convention find that termination is unjustified and if they are not empowered or do not find it practicable, in accordance with national law and practice, to declare the termination invalid and/or order or propose reinstatement of the worker, they shall be empowered to order payment of adequate compensation or such other relief as may be deemed appropriate.” 34. It is the contention of counsel that only the payment of the sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) on the footing of general damages shall be adequate to compensate the Claimant in the circumstances. The Claimant is a family man and bread winner with many responsibilities. Counsel urged the court to resolve the second issue formulated above in favour of the Claimant and hold that the Claimant has proved his case on the balance of probability and entitled to the reliefs sought. 35. In concluding his submission counsel urged the Court to enter judgment in favour of the Claimant as doing so will be more in line with the dictate of justice. The Claimant has sufficiently proved his case against the Defendant on the balance of probability that the termination of his employment was wrongful and he suffered damages. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT: 36. The defendant also formulated two issues for determination, to wit:- 1. Whether there was a Breach of Contract with regard to service of requisite Notice of Termination on the Claimant. 2. Whether the evidence before the Honourable Court is sufficient to warrant the grant of the reliefs sought by the Claimant. ARGUMENT 37. ISSUE I; in arguing this issue counsel for the defendant contended that the entire case of the Claimant herein is hinged or predicated on Exhibit “CW1-1” and Exhibit “CW1-2”. Exhibit “CW1-1” provides inter-alia that the Appointment of the Claimant may be terminated by either party giving two weeks’ Notice before termination. Exhibit “CW1-2” shows that the period of two weeks stipulated or provided in Exhibit “CW1-1” was not followed. 38. However my lord, Exhibit “CW1-1” does not provide for any remedy or consequence for Breach as far as Notice of Termination is concerned. It is our humble submission therefore, that it is trite in law that parties are bound by the content of their contract. Counsel urged the Court to interpret the Breach of Notice of Termination strictly in accordance with the content of Exhibit “CW1-1”. 39. Counsel argued that if the court is minded otherwise to award any other measure, the amount ought not to exceed half of the salary due to Claimant. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claimant in the entirety of his Claim did not ask for half of his salary as remedy for Breach of Contract of Employment. This Court is not Father Christmas to award what was not claimed Exhibit “CW1-2” shows clearly that Claimant was entitled to the following: a. Outstanding Leave Allowance. b. Pension contribution up to August 15, 2017. 40. Counsel contended that since the Claimant in the entirety of his case or Claim did not complain of non-payment of salary or pension. It is safe to conclude that all his entitlements were duly paid to him. 41. According to counsel in paragraph 9 of Claimant’s Statement on Oath, he stated that the reason for his termination was ridiculous, false and unjustifiable. He claims that he has always exhibited very high competence and intelligence in the discharge of his duties. Counsel to Claimant in his Final Written Address sought to sway the mind of this Honourable Court by introducing victimization as the reason the employment of Claimant was terminated. Exhibit “CW1-2” is documentary evidence and no extraneous fact can be read or introduced into it. From the date Claimant was issued with Exhibit”CW1-2”, he had ample opportunity to have complained to Defendant either orally or in writing, he did none of these. Exhibit “CW1-3” is not a response to the reason for termination as contained in Exhibit “CW1-2”. Exhibit “CW1-3” is clearly a Letter of Demand written in anticipation of litigation. It is also not a business letter as claimed by counsel to Claimant in his Final Written Address 42. It is contended that in paragraph 11 Claimant stated in his Statement on Oath that he suffered untold hardship, psychological trauma and emotional distress as a result of his termination. But, at nowhere in his Statement of Facts or Oath provide particulars to show trauma, distress or even hardship. Counsel argued that from the contents of Exhibit “CW1-2” it is clear that all entitlements that would cushion Claimant’s hardship were paid to him. He claims that he is a University graduate and he has not told this Honourable Court that his termination has prevented him from getting another job. It is on record that he was laid off by a sister company of the Defendant before his engagement. 43. In paragraph 12 of Claimant’s Statement on Oath, Claimant states as follows: “That it is conventional and reasonable that Three months salaries payment in lieu of notice of termination be given to an employee whose employment is terminated without service of adequate notice and severance benefit paid to cushion the effect”. 44. It is the contention of counsel that this piece of evidence is the opinion of the Claimant. It also does not refer particularly to Claimant himself. It is a general statement of fact. It is contended that what is conventional and reasonable in Nigeria with regards to payment in lieu of Notice of Termination is salary, pension and gratuity in deserving cases. All these are known to an employee before termination of employment or retirement. For claimant to ask for three months’ salary as reasonable in the circumstances of this case is punitive. It is our view that the evidence before this Honourable Court does not support this claim. 45. It is submitted that the claim in paragraph 15 of Claimant’s Statement on Oath is vague, ambiguous and is not particular. Counsel contended that the Court cannot go on a voyage of discovery to know what Severance Benefit in this case is. This Honourable Court cannot make an Order in vacuum. This claim is not supported by the entire evidence led by Claimant. 46. It is also the submission of counsel that the evidence available before this Honourable Court in our humble view cannot support the claim for the sum of ?500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as damages. 47. In concluding his submission counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant with cost of ?100,000.00 (One Hundred Thousand Naira) only having not met the minimal burden of proof required by law and plethora of cases. COURT’S DECISION: 48. I have considered the processes filed in this suit as well as the written and oral submissions of counsel for both parties. 49. In the case at hand, the defendant though participated in the hearing did not file defence nor called any witness in defence of the case. This means that the defendant rest its case on the claimant’s case. Therefore, this action will be decided based on the facts as presented by the claimant. 50. It is the contention of counsel for the claimant that the Defendant having not joined issues with the Claimant by way of pleading and having not testified in the proceeding in rebuttal, the defendant is deemed to have admitted Claimant’s facts as put forward by the Claimant. It is further argued that the Claimant has demonstrated sufficiently with credible evidence that the Defendant wrongfully terminated his employment with the defendant, thereby suffered damages. The Defendant did not offer any evidence at all in rebuttal of the several assertions that the termination is wrongful and that there is international best practice inuring in favour of the claimant. 51. The counsel for the Claimant has urged this court to hold that the Claimant has proved his case since there is no defence to counter or controvert the claim. A careful examination of the reliefs being sought will show that the reliefs being sought by the Claimant are payment of the sum of N128,160.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Naira) only, being payment in lieu of notice of termination of the claimant’s employment. He is also seeking for an order directing the defendant to immediately calculate the claimant’s severance benefit and pay to the claimant and an order directing the defendant to immediately pay to the claimant the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) being general damages for breach of contract of employment, psychological trauma and/or emotional distress. 52. The law is that in civil claim, the duty of a court of law is to render unto a party as per his proven claim. See A.I.B. V Packo Plastics (2001) 30 WRN 141; Agbi V ogbeh (2006) 39 LRN 1739. It is trite law that claims for salaries, severance benefit/entitlement or/and allowances are claims for special damages, in which the party making the claim has a burden of proving his claim strictly by cogent, compelling and credible evidence. The law is also trite that claim is circumscribed by reliefs claimed; and the duty of a plaintiff, therefore, is to plead only such facts and materials as are necessary to sustain the reliefs and adduce evidence to prove same. See Gabriel Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Ltd [2008] LPELR-591(SC); [2008] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399; [2008] 5 - 6 SC (Pt. II) 47, this court has in a plethora of decisions held that an employee making a claim in an employment or labour case has the burden of proving his entitlement to the claim and the quantum of his claim in terms of how he came by the said claim. See Ineh Monday Mgbeti v. Unity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/98/2014, the judgment of which was delivered on 21st February 2017, Mr Charles Ughele v. Access Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/287/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 10th February 2017 and Stephen Ayaogu & 16 ors v. Mobil Producing Nigeria Unlimited & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/38/2010, the judgment of which was delivered on 27th October 2017. 53. To prove an entitlement, the employee must refer the Court to the exact provisions of the law, instrument or document that conferred the entitlement. See Otunba Gabriel Oladipo Abijo v. Promasidor (Nig.) Ltd unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/602/2014 the ruling of which was delivered on 17th January 2017 and Mr Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. To prove the quantum of the sums claimed, the rule regarding proof of special damages must be adhered to. This is because, the claim for “entitlements and/or benefits”, being monetary sums, is a claim for special damages. See Kelvin Nwaigwe v. Fidelity Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/85/2014 the judgment of which was delivered on 24th January 2017. To succeed in a claim for special damages, it must be claimed specifically and proved strictly. The fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence. See NNPC v. Clifco Nig. Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC), Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC and 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA). The claimant has a duty to give specific particulars of the special damages he is claiming. This is to enable the opposing party know what he is to meet in the case. See AG, Anambra State v. CN Onuselogu Enterprises Ltd [1987] LPELR-614(SC); [1987] NWLR (Pt. 66) 47; [1987] All NLR 579; [1987] 9 - 11 SC 197 and Marine Management Associates Inc. & anor v. National Maritime Authority [2012] LPELR-206(SC). 54. In Relief A, the claimant is seeking for payment of the sum of N128,160.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousanf One Hundred and Sixty Naira) only, being payment in lieu of notice. The evidence the claimant is relying in proof of this head of claim is to the effect that the amount is his thrree Months salary, which to him is the reasonable amount that can be grant since his enployment was not properly determined as he was not given the requisite notice provided by the condition of service, his letter of employment exhibit CW1A1-2. The claimant in paragraphs 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, has stated that his monthly salary is the sum of N42,720.00 (Forty two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Naira) only. By the term of employment exhibit CW1A1-2, either party can terminate the contract by giving the other two weeks notice of termination. Vide exhibit CW1B letter of termination dated 9/8/2017, the employment of the claimant was terminated with effect from 15/8/2017, on the ground of ‘below average intelligence rating & test score’according to claimant the reason was not only ridiculous but false and unjustifiable as he always exhibited very high competence and intelligence in dischaging his duties over the years and the reason why he was never queried for any reason at all by the defendant. The defendant was in breach of the contract of employment when the employment of the claimant was terminated by giving him less than a week notice. The claimant in attempt to justify claim for three months salaries as what he is entitled to be paid in lieu of notice stated that it is conventional and reasonable, since adequate notice was not given. See paragraph 11 of the statement of facts and paragraph 12 of the witness statement on oath. He also relied on exhibit CW1C1-3, letter of demand wrtten by his solicitors to the defendant which was not replied. 55. In contending in favour of the claim for three months salary as entitlemt of claimant for wrongful termination, consel for the claimant has argued that with the coming into foce iof Third Alteration Act, in section 254C and section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, there is shift in the age long position of the law which recognises the power of employer to terminate employment of employee with or without any reason, for good or for bad. Counsel contended that the power donated to this court to apply international best practices, has shown that for any termination there must be valid reason for such termination. On this contention counsel relied on Article 4 of International Labour Organization Convention on Termination of Employment – Cnvention 1982, (No. 158), which requres that employment of a worker should not be terminatyed unless there a valid reason. Counsel refers to some decisions of this court where five months salary was awarded for termination without giving reason. 56. The authorities on determination of contractual relationship between Master and Servant are very clear that an employer has unfettered right to do away with services of employee he does not want. Therefore, where laid down procedure was not followed, can only make the fact of termination/dismissal wrongful. This is because as to an employer’s right to dismiss an employee, the authorities are pretty clear that the defendant has such a right even if not specifically written in the contract of service. For instance, by Simon Ansambe v. Bank of the North Ltd [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650, the fact that there is no specific provision as to termination or summary dismissal in the terms of the contract will not prevent the employer from exercising his right to so terminate or dismiss. It must be made clear that the non-observance of procedure can only make the termination wrongful entitling the claimant to only damages. 57. The authorities are, however, clear that a finding that a termination of employment or dismissal is wrongful leads to only damages, and the measure of damages is what is payable by reference to the notice period. 58. In Oak Pensions Ltd v. Olayinka [2017] LEPLR-43207(CA); [2018] 12 ACELR 85, the Court of appeal stated, thus: ‘’The law still remains that the relationship between a master and his servant or employer and his employee, is a contractual one and it is governed and regulated by the terms and conditions of the contract between them. NEPA v. Adesaaji (2002) 17 NWLR (797) 578; Momoh v. CBN (2007) 14 NWLR (1055) 504; Osakwe v. Nig. Paper Mill Ltd (1998) 10 NWLR (568) 1; PAN v. Oje (1997) 11 NWLR (530) 625. The law is also settled that the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties to such a contract, are to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions to which they have freely and voluntarily agreed to govern and regulate the relationship between them. S. S. Co. Ltd v. Afropek Nig. Ltd (2008) 18 NWLR (1118) 77; Amodu v. Amode (supra); Calabar Cement Co. Ltd v. Daniel (1991) 4 NWLR (188) 750; Katto v. CBN (1999) 6 NWLR (607) 390. In addition, the law does not permit a Court to alter, by subtraction or addition, or re-write the terms and conditions of a contract entered into by the parties, on the pretext of exercising a judicial discretion that completely ignores the sanctity of their agreement. Owoniboys Technical Services Limited v. UBN Limited (2003) 15 NWLR (844) 545; Mazin Engineering Limited v. Tower Aluminum (1993) 5 NWLR (295) 526; Dalek Nigeria Limited v. OMPADEC (2007) 7 NWLR (1033) 402. Unfair labour practice or international best practices may arise in the course of employment or in a trade dispute or industrial relations, but cannot rightly and properly be imported into the terms and conditions of a contract of service freely entered into for a servant-master relationship. The rights, entitlements and obligations of the parties in such a relationship, are in law and equity, to be and are governed by the terms and conditions voluntarily agreed to by the parties and not by sentimental conjunctures of what is fair or unfair conduct in the relationship in complete disregard of the terms and conditions. The issue of unfair labour practice or international best practice would not arise in the exercise of a right vested in the parties by their own voluntary agreement on how to end or determine the relationship between them. The Supreme Court, in the case of Nwobosi v. ACB Limited (1995) 6 NWLR (404) 658 @ 674, held that:- i. "Once it is established that a relationship of master-servant exists, then it carries with it all its attendant consequences, one of which is the right of a master to terminate the services of his servant according to the terms of the contract between them." See also Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (150) 356. In addition, as provided for in Section 7(6) of NICA, the issue of good or international best practice in labour and industrial relations is a question of fact to be pleaded and proved satisfactorily by a Claimant before the trial Court could judiciously have regard to it in the determination of the case presented by him.’’ 59. It is clear from the above passage of the decision of the Court of Appeal that though parties are bound by the contractual agreement, by the provisions of section 254C and section 7(6) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, the court is duly clothed with power to apply international best practices based on the facts presented by the party seeking to enjoy the benefit of the international best practice. The claimant has in paragraph 11 of his statement of facts pleaded international best practice, he has also pleaded that the defendant did not follow due process in terminating his appointment. The claimant relied on convention No. 158 of the ILO on termination of appointment, which requires giving of valid reason in terminating appointment. According to the claimant the reason given in exhibit CW1B, was not only ridiculous but false as he has performed his duties diligently and intelligently for the number of years he served without any query. Under cross-examination, he admitted sitting for examination on intelligence and he maintained that he did not fail the said exam. 60. The defendant despite this damning evidence from the claimant did not deemed it necessary to file defence and adduced evidence in rebuttal, in the circumstance I accept the evidence if the claimant to the effect that he did not fail any examination on intelligence to warrant termination of his appointment on that ground. It is the law that where an employer has given reason why the employment of an employee was terminated, the employer has a bounden duty of satisfying the court of the reason for termination. The law is well settled that once employer gives a reason for terminating or dismissing an employee, the burden lies with him to justify the said reason. See KUNLE OSISANYA V AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC 2007 ALL FWLR PART360 1480SC, 2007 12 SC 317, SPDC LTD V OLARENWAJU 2008 LPELR-046SC, 2008 12 SC PTIII 27, ANGEL SHIPPING DYEING LTD V AJAH 2000 13 NWLR PT685 551. The defendant in the case at hand has failed to live up to its duty by refusing and neglecting to file defence and adduce evidence, establishing the reason given for the termination of claimant’s employment as contained in exhibit CW1B. This means that the defendant does not have evidence of proof of the assertion contained in the letter of termination exhibit CW1B. 61. From the pleaded facts and evidence adduced by the claimant I am satisfied that the termination of the claimant’s employment was not in line with international best practices and it amount to unfair labour practices contrary to article 4 of the ILO Convention 158 of termination of appointment. The claimant’s relief A for the sum of N128,160.00 three months’ salary in lieu of notice succeed and is hereby granted. the defendant in the final written address has argued that granting of relief A will amount to the court being charitable organization, acting like father Christmas. This contention cannot hold water as the clamant has specifically claimed for relief A, it is only when a claim not claimed is granted that the court can be termed to be a father Christmas. 62. RELIEF B, is for an order directing the defendant to immediately calculate the claimant’s severance benefits and pay to the claimant. Claim for severance benefits is claim for special damages that must be strictly proved. The claimant from paragraph 5.17, 5.18, 5.19 of the final written address seems to be relying on deemed admission as a result of absence of pleading and evidence from the defendant. However, the law is settled beyond reproach that special damages must be specifically pleaded and specially proved by credible evidence and not by admission or in default. 63. The law is well settled that claims for severance benefits/entitlement are claims for monetary sums, which means that they are claims for special damages. See 7UP Bottling Company Plc v. Augustus [2012] LPELR-20873(CA), which held that the claims for gratuity, pension, housing fund and salary are all special damages and must be strictly proved; and that each of the said items must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court as the Court is not entitled to make its own estimate of same - it must be proved with credible evidence and without such proof no special damages can be awarded. See NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Ltd [2011] LPELR-2022(SC) is quite forcefully in holding that a claim for special damages cannot succeed because it is admitted as special damages are never inferred from the nature of the act complained of. They do not follow in the ordinary course as is the case with general damages. They are exceptional and so must be claimed specially and proved strictly. That the fact that it appears to be admitted does not relieve the party claiming it of the requirement of proof with compelling evidence as special damages are exceptional in character and so there is no room for inference by the Court. It is unreasonable to consider a claim for special damages reasonable in the absence of proof. A claim for special damages succeeds on compelling evidence to justify it and not on the sums claimed appearing reasonable to the Court. See further Mr Ignatius Anyanwu & ors v. Mr Aloysius Uzowuaka & ors [2009] LPELR-515(SC); [2009] 13 NWLR (Pt. 1159) 445 SC. 64. There is nothing in the pleading and evidence before the court to establish entitlement to this head of claim. The claimant has not referred this court to the provisions of the contract of service that make him to be entitled to severance benefit and what amount he can claim, the failure of the claimant to supply the necessary facts that the court can look at to determine this claim is fatal to the claim. The claimant has not told this court which instrument grants him 7.5% of his salaries as severance benefit. The claimant in his contention in paragraph 5.23 of the final written address has admitted that the service agreement exhibit CW1A1-2, does not have provision for severance package. But he is relying Article 12 of ILO convention. The claimant had not as well told this court the amount that can be claimed as per Article of ILO Convention No. 158. With the state of evidence this court is not in a position to know the entitlement of the claim as to severance benefit. The court cannot speculate. In the absence of evidence as to quantum of severance benefit, the claimant has not proved his entitlement to Relief B, same is hereby dismissed. 65. It is also to be noted that the way and manner relief B was couched shows that it is a vague and uncertain claim. The Claimant has not been particularized and ascertained quantum, of his Claim for the severance benefit. The Claimant has also not tendered any evidence as to what his entitlement is all about. The failure by the claimant to prove the quantum of his claim has deprived this court of the power to grant such claim, the claim is nebulous, indistinct and vague. The apex court has deprecated this type of claim and refused to grant it see University of jos v Ikegwuoka (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478, in that case the plaintiff had claimed an order directing the appellant to confirm his appointment as lecturer ii in the department of political science at University of Jos with effect from 27th January 1995 with all his promotions, allowances and entitlements, etc. the entire claim of the claimant was dismissed, on appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. But on further appeal to Supreme Court, the appeal was allowed in part. However, the part of the claim relating to promotions, allowances and entitlement were adjudged not to have been satisfactorily proved and accordingly dismissed. The apex Court stated, thus: i. ‘’All the reliefs to promotions, allowances and entitlements being reliefs that are vague, uncertain and lacking in particulars and proof by evidence must fails there was no evidence of any promotion, allowances or entitlements inuring to the respondent which appellant is withholding from being exercised in the respondent’s favour by the appellant.’’ 66. I must observe in regard to this matter that the Claimant has neither pleaded satisfactorily his special damages to wit; severance benefit as his entitlement. The law is well settled that unless pleaded specially and proved strictly, the court is not obliged to grant such claim or make any award in that regard for special damages. Relief B fails and same is hereby dismissed. 67. Relief C, is for payment of N500,000.00 general damages for breach of contract of employment, psychological trauma and/or emotional distress. In proof this claim claimant relied on Article 10 of the ILO Convention. 68. The Claimant seeks the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only as general damages against the Defendants for breach of contract of employment, psychological trauma and/or emotional distress. However, the Defendants’ position is that the Claimant is not entitled to general damages or any form of damages at all. It has long been settled that except a breach flows from damages contemplated by the parties at the time of entering the contract, no other damages should be awarded. Thus, there can be no room for claims which are merely speculative or sentimental unless these claims are provided for by the terms of the contract. 69. The position of the law is that general damages are not awarded in actions of this nature. The Court of Appeal per Galadima JCA was succinct in Wilbros Nig. Ltd. & Anor. v. Macaulay [2009] LPELR-8507, when it held on this as follows: "...a plaintiff in an action for wrongful or unlawful dismissal is not entitled to general damages because such general damages belong to the realm of claims in tort, while actions for damages for wrongful or unlawful dismissal are based on contract…In CO-OPERATIVE DEV. BANK ESSIEN (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt.704) 479 at 492, a matter in which the plaintiff brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, the Court held that in the consideration of an award in consequence of a breach of contract of employment the measure of damages is the loss flowing naturally from the breach and is incurred in direct consequence of the violation. It held further that the damages recoverable are the losses reasonably foreseeable by the parties and foreseen by them at the time of the contract as inevitably arising if one of them broke faith with the other. That in the contemplation of such a loss, there can be no room for claims which are merely speculative or sentimental unless these are specially provided for by the terms of contract.” 70. Similarly, in UBN Plc v. Toyinbo [2008] LPELR-5056, the Court of Appeal held as follows: “I agree therefore with the authorities of COOPERATIVE BANK PLC V. ESSIEN (2001) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 704) 4079 at 492 paras. E. F; 493 B - C that the Plaintiff/Respondent would not have been entitled to general damages since an employee who successfully established wrongful termination of his employment would only be entitled to what would have been due to him for the period of notice. Thus, the Court below exceeded its bounds when it went ahead to award both special and general damages for breach of contract of employment as in this case. Again in line with the dictum of Karibi- Whyte in CHUKWUMAH V. SHELL PETROLEUM CO. LTD (1993) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt 285) 512 the Court awarded damages upon the assumption that the Respondent's appointment was terminated wrongfully and if at all that was the case, the damages should not have exceeded his salary and perquisite of office as at the time notice was not given to him. In other words, the principle of "restitution integrum" would have applied in the computation of damages." 71. In the case at hand the court having found the termination of claimant’s employment to have been wrongful and appropriate remedy granted, the claimant is not entitled to general damages, granting such relief will amount to double compensation which the law frowns at. 72. For avoidance of doubt the order of the court is as follows:- 73. The termination of claimant’s employment as per exhibit CW1A1-2, is wrongful in law for giving only 6 days’ notice as against two weeks’ notice provided in the contract of service. 74. The reason for termination having not been established by the defendant to the satisfaction of the court has rendered the termination contrary to international best practices, as per Convention No. 158 of the International Labour Organization (ILO). 75. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay to the claimant the sum of N128,160.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Eight Thousand One Hundred and Sixty Naira) only, for wrongful termination and unfair labour practice. 76. Relief B, fails for lack of prove of entitlement of same and lack of quantum entitled to. 77. Relief C, has equally failed to be proved and same is dismissed. 78. The defendant shall pay to the claimant cost assess at the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira) only. 79. All monetary awards in this judgment shall be paid within 21 days failing which it shall attract 10 % interest per annum. 80. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: Amos Enemali Igomu, Esq; counsel for the Claimant