Download PDF
Judgment Introduction & Claims 1. The Claimant commenced this suit by his General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts and other accompanying processes on 15/7/15 and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant employment by a letter dated 3rd of May, 2012 based on various allegations of misconduct without affording the Claimant the opportunity to defend himself is illegal, wrongful and of no effect in law whatsoever or howsoever having breached the Claimant fundamental right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 2. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant employment by a letter dated 3rd of May, 2012 is wrongful. 3. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to be paid gratuity and other benefits accrued thereon having worked in the employment of the Defendant for a period of 16 years. 4. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to an annual increment in salary and that at the time of the purported termination of the Claimant employment, the Claimant salary is N87, 244.00 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Four Naira Only) per month. 5. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant, the sum of N2, 093, 856 (Two Million and Ninety-Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira Only) being gratuity benefits due to the Claimant but unlawfully denied by the Defendant. 6. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N87,244.00 (Eighty-Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty-Four Naira) being one month salary in lieu of Notice. 7. An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N87,244 being the 2012 leave allowance due to the Claimant but was denied the Claimant. 8. An Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N978,480 being the contribution to internal retirement fund from 1996 to 3rd May 2012. 2. Upon the service of the originating processes on the Defendant, the Defendant entered an appearance on 9/9/15 filed its statement of defence and counter claimed as follows - 1. An Order of court compelling the Claimant to pay the Defendant the sum of N10, 959, 196.00 (Ten Million, Nine Hundred and Fifty Nine Thousand, One Hundred and Ninety-Six Naira) being worth of goods of the Defendant sold by the Claimant on credit without written authorization and or obtained from the Defendant. 2. An Order of court compelling the Claimant to refund the Defendant the sum of N448, 984.00 (Four Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Nine Hundred and Eight-Four Naira) being cash realized by the Claimant from the sales of the Defendant's goods in the custody of the Claimant as Defendant’s Lagos Depot Manager which sum of money was misappropriated by the Claimant between 12th September, 2011 to 9th February, 2012. 3. A Declaration of the Honourable Court that the termination/dismissal of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant is proper and lawful and in compliance with the Defendant’s staff condition of service. 4. N3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira Only) general damages against the Defendant for being in breach of the undertaken dated 6th January, 2006 mandating him not to sell Defendant’s products on credit without first obtaining written authorization from the Defendant. Case of the Claimant 3. The Claimant opened his case on 1/11/16. He adopted his written depositions dated 1/7/15 and 7/12/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 25 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C25 respectively. 4. The case of the Claimant as revealed in his pleadings and evidence in chief is that he an employee of the Defendant having been employed on 26/3/96; that he has been in the Defendant’s employment for about 16 years before the termination of his employment by a letter dated 3/5/12; that before the termination of his employment he was the Depot Manager of the Defendant in charge of its Lagos Depot; that the termination of his employment by the Defendant based on various allegations of misconduct is illegal, wrongful and a breach of his fundamental right to fair hearing in that he was not afforded an opportunity to defend himself on the various allegations of misconduct leveled against him; that after the termination of his employment, he protested; that he was not given notice of the termination or paid a month's salary in lieu of notice and that his monthly salary before his employment was terminated was =N=87,244.00. 5. Under cross examination, Claimant testified that before the termination of his employment he was paid salary up till April 2012; that he was employed in 1996; that in 2006 a Form was brought into a meeting and was distributed to all Depot Managers and Sales Representatives to sign; that he signed the Form; that the practice with the Defendant then was to sell products on credit and they were all selling on credit; that the content of the Form he signed in 2006 was to the effect that himself and others should no longer sell Defendant's product on credit; that since then he stopped to sell on credit; that after that there was a letter directing Depot Managers and Sales Representatives to revert to selling on credit. Claimant stated further that he took an I Owe You in the sum of =N=45,000.00 from the Defendant; that the Defendant approved same; that there is authority by Defendant for him to grant I Owe You to any staff of which he was not excluded; that by the authority he was given, he was giving credit facility to other staff and recovered same back without query; that he had paid the advance credit facility he took from the Defendant as at the time his employment was terminated; that deduction for repayment of the credit was taken from his salary before the termination of his employment; that by April of 2012 he had paid the money back; that he left the Defendant in May of 2012 and that what he had said is the truth; that the approved account limit for imprest when he took over in Lagos was about =N=168,000.00; that he took over in March of 2008; that the sum was later reduced to =N=145,000.00; that he could not say if he was queried in 2009 for exceeding the limit of the imprest account; that in 2007 he was sent to proceed on transfer and he proceeded immediately but the Chairman of the Defendant later told him to go back to his station so that the man in Lagos could complete his wedding arrangement; that in the same vein the man who ought to take over from him in Onitsha did not report hence he was asked to stay back; that he received a letter from the Chairman dated 2/2/08 warning him on the implication of not proceeding on transfer; that he was not told the reason for his being transferred to Lagos Depot; that he was aware of the debts incurred by his predecessor in Lagos Depot and he took steps to recover them and that as at 3/5/12 he was still the Depot Manager of the Defendant in Lagos. 6. According to the witness, he knew J. Nwasuagwu and Achor Chinwe; that the former was sent to audit the account of his Depot in 2012; that he did not provide him with facilities for doing the auditing; that he was aware he came to audit the Lagos Depot; that the Cashier and the Sales Representative provided the information he required; that they were under him and had their job description; that the Audit Report did not indict him of selling the products of the Defendant on credit; that he could not remember how much products of the Defendant he sold on credit; that there was a letter of the Chairman querying him on the Audit Report but that this was premeditated as it was the Chief Accountant who ordinarily should issue a query on Audit Report; that he responded to the Query and that in the letter of termination of his employment there was no reference to his answer to the Query that his answer was not satisfactory. Case of the Defendant 7. The Defendant opened its defence on 21/2/17 and called 2 witnesses. One Monday Ajeagbu who testified as DW1 adopted his written depositions of 9/9/15 and 21/6/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 13 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D13 respectively. 8. The case of the Defendant as put forward by this witness is that the Claimant was its employee from 26/3/96 till 3/5/12 when his employment was terminated; that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by a letter dated 3/5/12 was proper based on various allegations of misconduct against the Claimant; that the Claimant was given a query which he answered; that the Defendant not being satisfied with the answer of the Claimant to the said query terminated his employment and that the Claimant is liable to it for some sum of money for goods sold on credit and the money recovered. 9. Under cross examination, the witness stated that the Claimant was the Depot Manager; that he would receive correspondences on behalf of the Defendant; that all Depot Manager signed undertaking not to sell on credit; that only the Claimant continued to sell on credit and that the Defendant accepted Claimant's plea to go and recover the outstanding debt. According to the witness there was an Audit Report in 2012 based on which the Claimant was issued Query and he answered; the Claimant was given a warning letter in 2008; that no warning letter was given after the Audit Report; that if the Defendant knew the customers Claimant sold goods to on credit it would proceed against them but that the Defendant could not trace the debtors who are not known; that Claimant gives directives to other staff in the Depot; that Claimant goes to collect cash from customers and hands to Cashier for lodgment in the Bank; that Claimant is entitled to terminal benefits if he did not commit any breach of conditions of service and that the termination of Claimant's employment amounts to his dismissal. 10. One Achor Chinwe testified as DW2. Witness adopted his written deposition dated 9/9/15 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any exhibit. Under cross examination, DW2 stated that he conducted audit at the Lagos office of the Defendant; that he was given the documents by the Depot Manager; that he was given the names of Debtors but not their addresses; that it is not the responsibility of the cashier to collect cash and cheques from customers and lodge in the Bank; that it is the duty of the depot Manager and he has the power to delegate any staff to do so; that the cashier takes instruction from the Depot Manager for the day to day business of the depot; that the Depot Manager is aware of what money comes to the Defendant and what is lodged in the Bank and that the present Depot Manager was the Cashier at the time of this incident. Witness added that it is not the policy of the Defendant to sell on credit; that no branch sells on credit without previous permission to do so; that Lagos Depot has never operated or sold on credit; that he does not know when the Lagos depot started to sell on credit; that the Claimant was not a signatory to Defendant's account; that the Claimant worked in other branches of the Defendant before he was sent to Lagos; that he does not know why the Claimant was brought to Lagos; that the Defendant could transfer any staff from one branch to another for any reason; that there were debts in Lagos Depot before the Claimant was transferred to Lagos; that the Defendant could only recover debts that are real and not fictitious; that he asked the Claimant for debt verification and he refused to take him to the customers; that he does not know what efforts the Defendant is making to recover the debts and that he does not know if the Claimant issued Query to the present Depot Manager who was then the Cashier. There was no reexamination. Submissions of learned Counsel 11. At the conclusion of hearing and pursuant to an order of Court, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed his final written address on 28/5/19 and set the following issues down for determination - 1. Whether from the evidence adduced, the Defendant in the exercise of its right under the contract of employment to dismiss the Claimant from its employment, the Claimant was given a fair hearing in line with Section 36 (1) and (4) of the 1999 Constitution of Federal Republic of Nigeria and whether the termination is wrongful. 2. Whether from the evidence adduced if the termination of the Claimant’s employment is not wrongful whether the Claimant is entitled to payment of gratuity and other payment benefits in line with the Defendant’s staff condition of service. 3. Whether the Defendant who is a counter-claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought based on the evidence adduced. 12. In arguing these, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant was afforded an opportunity to defend himself on the allegations of misconduct levied against him before his employment was terminated referring to Exh. D3-Exh. D8 and the pleadings of the Defendant; that Claimant acknowledged receipt of a Query and that he answered same and that Claimant was certainly given fair hearing before the termination of his employment citing Federal Civil Service Commission v. Laoye (1989)2 NWLR (Pt. 106) 652 & Sofekun v. Akinyemi (1980)5-7 S.C. On whether the termination of Claimant's employment was wrongful, Counsel submitted that it is trite that a master can dismiss an employee for misconduct citing Eze v. Spring Bank Plc & Isheno v. Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc (2008)23 W.R.N 35 at 42 and that Claimant's employment was terminated on grounds of misconduct referring to Exh. D2, Exh. D4-Exh. D9. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold and to further hold that Claimant is bound by the provisions of the staff conditions of service contained in Exh. C7. Learned Counsel submitted further that by the provision of Article 25(b) of Exh. D13, the termination of Claimant's employment based on gross misconduct amounts to a summary dismissal in law notwithstanding the content of Exh. C9 which gave Claimant one month salary in lieu of notice of a month; that by Article 26 of Exh. C7 (same as Exh. D13) a dismissed employee of the Defendant was not entitled to any terminal benefit; that Claimant failed to prove how he came about entitlement to the sum of =N=2,093,856 as gratuity benefit and =N=978,480 as contribution to Internal retirement Fund from 1996 to May 3rd 2012. On its counter claim, learned Counsel argued that the Defendant had shown the Claimant signed an undertaking with Defendant not to sell or deliver any of its products to any customer without full payment in cash except with a written authority first sought and obtained from Defendant's Head Office and that Claimant having admitted the sum of =N=10,959,196.00 worth of goods of Defendant sold by him on credit, the onus is on him to show that he sought and obtained approval in writing before the sale on credit and that Claimant did not deny that the sum of =N=448,984.00 was misappropriated by the management of Lagos Depot under his control, supervision and management as the Depot Manager. Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that Claimant having breached the terms and conditions of his contract is liable to the Defendant in damages. Counsel prayed the Court to find in favor of the Defendant. 13. The final written address of the Claimant was filed on 9/10/18. In it, Counsel set down the following 3 issues down for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant's employment was wrongfully terminated. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to be paid his severance benefits having worked in the employment of the Defendant for 16 years without being dismissed from employment. 3. Whether the practice of the Defendant not to pay the Claimant whose employment was terminated and not dismissed his severance benefits and entitlement is not an unfair labour practice as envisaged in Section 254(c), 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. 14. Learned Counsel submitted that an employer may terminate the contract of an employee subject to the terms of the written contract citing International Drilling Co. v. Ajibola (1976)2 S.C 115 & Taiwo v. Kingsway Stores Limited (1950) NLR 122; that Claimant was not in any way indicted by any Audit Report and none was served on the Claimant; that the allegations were untrue and the indictment of the Claimant was a clear breach of his fundamental right to fair hearing under section 36 of the 1999 Constitution as amended citing Obafemi Awolowo Unversity v. Onabanjo (1991)5 NWLR (Pt. 549).Counsel argued that Claimant was not dismissed from his employment; that having worked with the Defendant for a period of 16 years he was entitled to severance benefit under Article 4 of his contract with Defendant citing Katto v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1999)6 NWLR (Pt. 390); that Claimant's appointment was terminated under Article 4 which in turn entitled him to benefit under Article 35. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to order the Defendant to pay Claimant his severance benefit under Article 35(ii)(iv)(xiii) of Exh. C6. It was also the submission of the learned Counsel that the practice of the Defendant to maliciously denied its employee severance benefits and entitlements when not summarily dismissed is unfair labour practice and against international best practices in labour and industrial relations matters. Referring to S. 254 (1), Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, as amended, learned Counsel prayed the Court to strike down the provision of Article 30 of Exh. C7 (Defendant's Staff Condition of Service) as an unfair labour practice and against international best practice in labour and industrial relation matters. he prayed the Court to dismiss the counter claim sought and grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant. Decision 15. I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by the learned Counsel for the parties. I patiently listened to the testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and watched their demeanor. I heard the oral argument canvassed by the parties in support of their respective case. I also carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to the following - 1. Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of his claims to warrant a grant of all or some of the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the Defendant is entitled to any or all of the counter claims sought. 16. Employment relationship is a consensual one in which parties have freedom of entry and of exit. Either of the parties may bring the relationship to an end. An employer may terminate the relationship, dismiss the employee or retire him. On the other an employee may also resign from his employment. In all this, either side must comply with the terms and conditions of their engagement. Where therefore an employee complains of wrongful termination of his employment, he is under an obligation to lay before the Court the terms and conditions applicable to his employment. It thus for him to bring to the fore how the termination becomes wrongful. See N.B.C. PLC v. Edward (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1443) 201. In other words, contract of service is central to the determination of wrongfulness of termination of employment. 17. Claimant sought a declaration that the termination of his employment by a letter dated 3/5/12 based on various allegations of misconduct without affording him the opportunity to defend himself is illegal, wrongful and of no effect in law whatsoever or howsoever having breached his fundamental right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Was the Claimant afforded a hearing in event leading to the termination of his employment? The evidence before me shows that pursuant to Exh. D6 (Audit Report), the Defendant issued Claimant with Exh. D7 and requested his reaction. Exh. D7 consisted of various allegations of misconduct against the Claimant arising from the Audit Report. Exh. D8 dated 20/3/12 is the reaction or reply of the Claimant to Exh. D7. In that exhibit, Claimant proffered explanation respecting some of the issues raised in the query to him. From this brief facts as recited, can it be rightly said that Claimant was denied fair hearing before the termination of his employment? I answer in the negative. The right to fair hearing is not a magic wand. It is nothing but an opportunity to be heard. By issuing a query to the Claimant, the Defendant no doubt afforded Claimant right to air his position. That he rightly did. It was after the response was offered that the Defendant felt dissatisfied and proceeded to terminate the employment of the Claimant. I find and hold that Claimant was not denied his right to fair hearing as guaranteed by the Constitution. The termination of his employment is therefore not wrongful. I so find and hold. 18. Claimant sought a declaration that he is entitled to be paid gratuity and other benefits accrued thereon having worked in the employment of the Defendant for a period of 16 years. The entitlement of an employee to gratuity and other terminal benefits is subject to the terms and conditions of engagement. Exh. D13 is the Staff Condition of Service applicable to the staff of the Defendant. That exhibit constitutes a binding contract between the Claimant and the Defendant. Exh. C7 provides that employees of the Defendant who retires, resigns or is made redundant by the company is entitled to gratuity. The exhibit states further on page 7 that the Management shall determine the gratuity of Pioneer Staff defined as a person employed from 1st January, 1990 to 31st December, 2000. By Exh. C1 Claimant was employed on 26/3/96. Claimant's employment was terminated effective from 4/5/12. I find and hold that Claimant is entitled to gratuity and other terminal benefits pursuant to the provision of Exh. C7. I thus declare that Claimant is entitled to be paid gratuity and other benefits accrued thereon having worked in the employment of the Defendant for a period of 16 years. 19. Claimant sought a declaration that he is entitled to an annual increment in salary and that at the time of the purported termination of his employment, his salary was N87, 244.00 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Four Naira Only) per month. This is a prayer for 2 declarations merged together. First, in it Claimant sought a declaration that he is entitled to an annual increment in salary. Secondly Claimant also sought a declaration that at the time of the purported termination of his employment, his salary was N87, 244.00 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Four Naira Only) per month. Respecting the first of the 2, Claimant's employment was terminated effective from 4/5/12. On its pages 16-17, paragraph 35(ii), Exh. C7 makes provision relating to Salary Review and Promotion. It states inter alia that - ''The Company reviews salaries and wages in accordance with Federal or State Government guidelines or reviews. However, the Company gives 10% Annual Increment for every employee or worker every January of the year, without prejudice to Government reviews. The Company may nevertheless grant additional increases to specially deserving individuals or workers ...''. 20. The evidence led shows that Claimant is entitled to the said increment since it is done every January of the year. I declare that the Claimant is entitled to annual salary increment. the second of the 2 is for a declaration that his salary is =N=87, 244.00 (Eighty Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty Four Naira Only) per month. In order for the Court to make the declaration sought, it is imperative for the Claimant to lead cogent evidence in support of same. The reason being that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course but rather on the basis of credible and cogent evidence. They are not even granted on admission or failure of the defendant to call evidence or defend the plaintiff or the claimant's claims at the trial. In Chief Edmund Akaninwo & Ors v. Chief O. N. Nsirim & Ors (2008) 2 SCNJ 100 at 113 - 114, Mahmoud Mohammed, JSC (as he then was) explained the position thus - "This is because with or without the admission in the statement of defence, the duty on the Plaintiffs to prove their entitlement to the declaratory relief on their own pleading and evidence, would not have changed. This is because the law is well settled that the Court does not make declarations of right either on mere admissions or in default of defence without hearing appropriate evidence and being satisfied with such evidence''. 21. Again in the words of Megarry, C.V, in Metzger v. Department of Health & Social Security (1977) 3 All E.R. 444 at 451. ''The Court does not make declaration just because the parties to litigation has chosen to admit something. The Court declares what it has found to be the law after proper argument not merely after admission by the parties. There are no declarations without arguments, that is quite plain." 22. There is no evidence led by the Claimant in support of this head of claim. There is no letter of employment in support of the figure claimed. There is no letter of confirmation in support of the same. There is also no Bank statement of account to evidence monthly payment of the sum claimed into Claimant's Bank account by the Defendant. I therefore refuse the declaration sought and dismiss same. 23. Respecting the claim for an Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant, the sum of N2, 093, 856 (Two Million and Ninety-Three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty-Six Naira Only) being gratuity benefits due to the Claimant but unlawfully denied by the Defendant, this Court has found and held in the course of this Judgment that Claimant is entitled to gratuity from the Defendant having worked with it since 1996 till 2012. The staff condition of service (Exh. C7) supports the entitlement of the Claimant as sought. However, how did the Claimant arrive at the sum of =N=2,093,856.00 as his gratuity? Of a truth, Exh. C7 which is same as Exh. D13 provides for 2 years salary as gratuity for employees who served Defendant for between 15-20 years. However, what is the annual salary of the Claimant which would be multiplied by 2 years to arrive at his gratuity? Already this Court has refused and dismissed a prayer for declaration that his monthly salary was =N=87,244.00 for lack of proof. There is no pay slip tendered or Bank statement of account to support any sum certain as annual or monthly salary of the Claimant at the time of this suit. Now his offer of employment letter Exh. C1, put Claimant's annual salary at =N=66,000.00. That was as at 26/3/96. Unfortunately, that is the only evidence the Court can use in calculating his entitlement to gratuity. By Exh. C7 Claimant is entitled to his 2 years annual salary as gratuity. Thus Claimant is entitled to =N=122,000.00 as gratuity. The Defendant is here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=122,000.00 as his gratuity having served the Defendant for 16 years. 24. I refuse and dismiss the prayer for an order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of N87,244.00 (Eighty-Seven Thousand, Two Hundred and Forty-Four Naira) being one month salary in lieu of Notice as well as an Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N87,244 being the 2012 leave allowance due to the Claimant but was denied the Claimant for lack of proof. Failure of the Claimant to lead evidence in proof of his monthly or annual salary is extremely fatal to the success of his case. 25. Finally, Claimant sought an Order of Court directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=978,480.00 being the contribution to internal retirement fund from 1996 to 3rd May 2012. Under paragraph 35(xiii) of Exh. C7 it is provided that - ''From 1st January, 2001 the company will operate a compulsory staff Retirement Fund different from the Nigeria Social Insurance Trust Fund (NSITF). The company will contribute 2% of each employees monthly salary in to the fund while the employee will contribute 1%. The contribution shall be made monthly. For an employee to join the Fund his appointment must be confirmed. ...'' 26. The modalities for this contribution are as stated above. Claimant had claimed =N=978,480.00 as his contribution and for the amount to be paid back to him. A challenge here is that Claimant has the burden of proving how he arrived at the sum claimed. In doing this Claimant ought to and must adduce evidence in relation to his monthly salary bearing in mind that he was to contribute 1% of his monthly salary to the fund. Claimant must also adduce evidence as to the amount contributed by his employer as 2% of his monthly salary. No evidence is led in support of this relief. I refuse and dismiss this head of claim accordingly. 27. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved its counter claims to be entitled to all or some of them. The law is trite that a counter claim is akin to a fresh and separate matter on its own. See Jeje v. Enterprise Bank Limited & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24829(CA). It is a procedure in which a Defendant in suit brings up claim against the Claimant in the same suit. In counter claim, the counter claimant has the same burden of adducing cogent, credible and admissible evidence in support of its counter claims. Unless the burden is discharged, the Court will not be favorably disposed to the counter claims made. The counter claims of the Defendant against the Claimant are 4 in all. 28. I have carefully examined the whole gamut of the counter claims sought vis-a-vis the available evidence. I note that the Defendant is still a going concern. In other words, it continues to be in business. Employees will therefore come while others will leave. The sum of =N=10,959,196.00 counter claimed was for goods of the Defendant sold by the Claimant on credit. I have it on record that they were sold to customers of the Defendant. It was not alleged before me that Claimant kept the proceeds of the sales to himself and for personal use. I also have it on record that Claimant recovered some indebtedness not incurred by him or during his period at the Lagos Depot of the Defendant. The basis of this head of counter claim is that Claimant sold goods on credit. I hold that that is not a cogent basis to make Claimant personally liable to pay the amount involved. Let the staff of the Defendant continue to carry on the business of the Defendant and by so doing recover any credit sales made by the Claimant to any of Defendant's customers. To order the Claimant to pay the money involved will neither be equitable nor supported by good conscience. I therefore refuse and dismiss same accordingly. For the same reason of absence of proof, I refuse and dismiss the claim for refund of the sum of =N=448, 984.00 allegedly misappropriated by the Claimant. There is no evidence of the alleged misappropriation before me. The last counter claim is for payment of =N3,000,000.00 as general damages. General damages are compensatory damages. They are awarded to assuage the wrong committed against the Claimant. The law regarding general damages presumes the damages as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. Such damages in law need not be "specifically pleaded and strictly proved''. In other words, general damages are compensatory damages for harm resulting from the tort for which the party has sued. See the cases of UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC & Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100. General damages will only be awarded upon proof of a wrong committed by the other party. Defendant/Counter claimant has not successfully proved any wrong committed by the Claimant/Respondent against it. There is therefore no ground upon which this Court will award general damages or any damages for that matter in favour of the Counter claimant. 29. In the circumstances of this case, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment - 1. I find and hold that the employment of the Claimant was not wrongfully terminated. 2. I declare that Claimant is entitled to be paid gratuity and other benefits accrued thereon having worked in the employment of the Defendant for a period of 16 years. 3. The Defendant is here ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=122,000.00 as his gratuity having served the Defendant for 16 years. 4. The Defendant is to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=50,000.00 as cost of this action. 5. I refuse and dismiss all other reliefs sought for lack of proof. 6. I refuse and dismiss all the heads of counter claims for lack of proof as required. 30. Judgment is entered accordingly. ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge