Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS DATE: NOVEMBER 19, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/598/2013 BETWEEN Mr. Vincent Ike - Claimant AND Fidelity Bank Plc. - Defendant REPRESENTATION Adesina Ogunlana for the Claimant. O.M. Ikeji for the Defendant. JUDGMENT The Claimant in this suit approached the Court on 13/11/13 via a General Form of Complaint and statement of facts claiming the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the termination of the appointment of the Claimant in the employment of the Defendant, by the Defendant is wrongful, improper, unfair, a breach of contract and mala-fide. 2. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to receive gratuity from the Defendant. 3. An order that the Defendant pay to the Claimant, the sum of 5 Million Naira being gratuity the Claimant is otherwise entitled to, but for the wrongful, purported termination of his employment by the Defendant. 4. An order that the Defendant pay the Claimant and the sum of Fifty Million Naira in damages for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment. 5. An order that the Defendant pay the Claimant the sum of ten Million Naira in exemplary damages for the wrongful termination of Claimant’s employment. The Claimant filed and served on the Defendant all requisite processes and frontloaded documents as mandated by the Rules of this Court. The Defendant reacted by filing its defence processes and frontloaded documents and counterclaimed as follows - 1. The sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand, Three Hundred and Four Naira, Sixty Kobo (=N=1,225,304.60) being the Claimant’s indebtedness to the Defendant comprising the unpaid loan and upfront allowances paid to the Claimant which he did not earn for the period he rendered no services to the Defendant. 2. Interest on the adjudged sum against the Claimant at 21.5% per annum being the Defendant’s prime lending rate from 19th May 2013 till judgment is delivered and thereafter at 10% per annum until the judgment debt is fully and finally liquidated as stated in the Defendant’s letter dated 20th February 2013. 3. Legal costs/expenses incurred in this Suit as may be assessed by the Court. The facts of this case, in brief, as apparent from the pleadings filed are that the Claimant was a staff of the defendant for four (4) years and nine (9) months from May 2008 to 12th January 2013; that at the time of his termination on 12/1/13, he was an Assistant Manager and Branch Leader of the Defendant’s VGC Branch with an annual salary of N7,968,800.00; that shortly before the Claimant’s termination, the Claimant together with other colleagues were queried, suspended and faced a disciplinary panel set up by the Defendant to investigate a delinquent 39.2 Million Naira credit transaction they were involved in. It was the contention of the Claimant that the Defendant terminated his appointment with the aim of depriving him of his gratuity which he would have ordinarily been entitled to, had he spent 3 additional months in the employment of the Defendant. By the averments in its pleadings, the Defendant refuted the allegations as contained in his Statement of Facts; that the claimant is not entitled to any terminal benefits and that indeed the Claimant’s total indebtedness to the Defendant as at 11/1/13 comprising the unpaid loan and allowance/amounts paid in advance to the Claimant for services not rendered is N1,225,304,60k calculated in accordance with the agreed total allowances of the Claimant per annum. The trial of this case commenced on 4/6/14 when the Claimant opened his case and testified as CW1. The Claimant adopted his written deposition on oath made on mmmm, as his evidence in chief, tendered 12 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. C1- Exh. C12. Claimant urged the Court to fine for him as per his statement of facts. Under cross examination, the Claimant stated that the reason for the termination of his employment is stated on the letter of termination; that he spent 4 years and 9 months with Defendant and that not having spent up to 5 years with Defendant he is not entitled to any gratuity. The Defendant opened its defence on 12/11/14. It called one Franklin Adaghubu as its witness. DW adopted his written witness deposition dated as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. D1 - Exh. D4. Under cross examination on 12/11/14 DW1 said he is conversant with the facts and circumstances of this case; that he is so conversant by the records available to him and also conversant with facts relating to the discipline of the Claimant; that on a personal note he knows the Claimant by virtue of his job; that he does not know how many Account Officers were under Claimant while he was a Branch Manager; that he knows that the Account Officers were more than one; that he was not there physically when the event in paragraph 4 of his deposition happened and that the day to day activities of branches are not supposed to be known by him. Witness added that he does not have off hand the time and place where Disciplinary Panel set concerning the Claimant; that he does not have names of members of the Disciplinary Panel right now; that three Staff appeared before the Panel; that he was not at the Panel; that he was not a member of the Panel; that Exh. D3 was sent by Franklin Adagbubu, authored by Napoleon Esemuje and copied to others including Napoleon Esemuje the Auditor. At the close of the case, learned Counsel on either side were directed by the Court to file their final written addresses for adoption in accordance with the rules of Court. The 12-page final written address of the Defendant was filed on 2/3/15. In it, learned Counsel first canvassed what was described as a preliminary of law and then set down three issues for determination. The preliminary point is - Whether the Claimant's reply to defence and defence to Counterclaim as presently constituted is not incompetent and an abuse of court process. The 3 issues set down for determination are as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive any sum as General Damages for wrongful termination of employment as claimed. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to receive the sum of =N=5 Million as gratuity from the Defendant in view of clause 7.20.3 of the Defendant's Personnel Policies and Procedure Guide (PPPG). 3. Whether the Defendant has established its counter claim and thereby entitled to Judgment in the sum of =N=1,225,304.60k. Arguing the preliminary point of law, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant after closing his case on 4/6/14 later filed an undated Reply to Defence and Defence to Counter claim together with a sworn witness statement on oath sworn to on 15/8/14 and that an application filed on 12/11/14 to regularise the process is still pending before the Court and unmoved by the Claimant. Learned Counsel submitted that pleadings are exchanged prior to trial, citing Ihezukwu v. University of Jos (1990)21 NSCC (Pt. III) 80 at 87 & Unity Bank Plc v. Automotive C.N. Ltd. (2012)All FWLR (Pt. 610) 1265 at 1312. Learned Counsel submitted that the procedure adopted by the Claimant would amount to gross injustice to the Defendant and urged the Court to expunge the Claimant's Reply to Defence and Defence to Counter claim, witness statement on oath in Response to the Defendant's Counterclaim as not being properly before the Court. Respecting issue 1, Counsel submitted that the onus is on the employee who alleges a wrongful termination of his employment to prove same, citing Kwara State Civil Service Commission v. Abiodun (2009)All FWLR (493) 1315 at 1362. Counsel submitted further that the terms of a contract of employment is a fundamental issue in determining whether termination of such contract is wrongful or not relying on Angel Spinning & Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2000)All FWLR (Pt. 23) 1332 at 1354 & Omenka v. Morison Industries Plc (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 683)147 at 154. According to learned Counsel, the Claimant did not plead his conditions of service and neither did he show the terms of his contract of service relating to discipline that was breached and that from paragraph 59 of the statement of facts, Claimant's claim was predicated on the Defendant's purported non-compliance with its Personnel Policies and Procedure Guide that deals with discipline. It is the position of learned Counsel that that document is not the contract of employment of the Claimant and that the Claimant could not rely on it for any right. Arguing further, learned Counsel submitted that assuming, though not conceding, that the PPPG confers rights on the Claimant, that the Claimant failed to plead or prove that the termination of his employment was in breach of any particular right conferred on him by the Personnel Policies and Procedure Guide. Counsel stated that the employment of the Claimant was terminated for services no longer required; that a combined reading of Exh. D1 & Exh. C4 leaves no one in doubt as to what the parties contemplated and agreed upon at the time the contract of employment was executed, citing Omega Bank Plc v. OBC (2005)8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 547. Counsel submitted that having paid the requisite money in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms of engagement, the termination of the Claimant's employment is not wrongful. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and resolve issue 1 in favour of the Defendant. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that it is not in issue that the Claimant did not spend five years in the employ of the Defendant referring to paragraph 58 of the statement of facts, paragraph 60 of the Claimant's written deposition on oath as well as Claimant's testimony under cross examination. According to learned Counsel by Clause 7.20.3 of Exh. C4 gratuity benefits will be paid to any core member of staff who has served for a minimum of five years and who exits the Defendant for reasons other than dismissal on account of fraud, misconduct or criminal offence. Counsel thus urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant. Issue 3 is whether the Defendant has established its counterclaim and thereby entitled to Judgment in the sum of =N=1,225,304.60. Counsel submitted that the uncontroverted averments in paragraphs 2-5 of the Defendant's Counter claim and the failure of the Claimant to file a defence to the counter claim shows that there is no dispute at all between the parties as to whether the Claimant was indebted to the Defendant to the tune of =N=1,225,304.60 as claimed. Secondly, Counsel submitted that the evidence adduced by the Defendant as reflected in Exh. D1 & Exh. D4 remained unchallenged and uncontradicted. Counsel pointed out that Exh. D4 clearly illustrates what the Claimant claimed and what he was given as advance payment in anticipation that he would earn what he had already received by completing an annual circle in the employment of the Defendant/Counter claimant. Referring to paragraphs 7.4.7.4.1, 7.4.2 and 7.4.5 of Exh. C4 and Exh. D1 Counsel submitted that there is nothing in any of the exhibits which stipulates or entitles the Claimant to gratuitous payment as work incentive. Learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant's counter claim remains credible and unchallenged and thus need no further proof, citing Durosayo v. Ayorinde (2005)All FWLR (Pt. 260) 167 at 182, Akaninwo v. Nsirim (2008)All FWLR (Pt. 410) 610 at 633. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Defendant/Counter claimant. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the Claimant and grant its counter claims as sought. The final written of the Claimant, an 8-page document dated 12/6/15 was filed on the same day. The following three issues were set down and canvassed for determination - 1. Whether the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to be compensated in damages for the termination of his employment by the Defendant. 3. Whether the Claimant is indebted to the Defendant and the Defendant entitled to recover same from the Claimant. On issue 1, according to learned Counsel, the discipline of Defendant's employees is governed by the relevant provisions of Personnel Policies and Procedure (PPPG) - Exh. C4; that the exhibit lays down Query, Caution, Formal Written Warning, Suspension, Withholding of Remuneration/Entitlements, Termination Dismissal as the disciplinary measures which may be taken against a staff and that page 19 of Exh. C4 contains grounds upon which termination may be imposed on a staff which grounds are as follows - i. Malingering (i.e pretending illness in order to avoid work); ii. Regular absenteeism; iii. Habitual lateness; iv. Unsatisfactory performance (based on performance appraisal); v. Rudeness to any of the Bank's customers; vi. Drawing of Cheques on unfunded accounts; vii. Insubordination, insolence or any other form of unsatisfactory conduct; viii. Refusal to work or carry out lawful instructions; ix. Engaging in any business that conflicts with the Bank's interest and x. Commission of any other offence of similar gravity as those described above. Counsel submitted that the reason for the termination of his employment as contained in Exh. C7 - Services no longer required, is not known to the Discipline and Grievance Procedure section of Exh.C4 and that the purported termination of the Claimant's employment for a reason outside the purview of the Guidelines of the contract between the parties is wrongful, citing Ali v. N.A.A (2005) FWLR 205. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that ordinarily the entitlement of an employee in a situation of wrongful termination of employment is limited to what he would have earned as salary in lieu of the notice of termination, citing CBN v. Akrchibond (2001) FWLR (Pt. 58) 1032 at 1035 & 1052. Counsel submitted further that notwithstanding the position of the case law, this Court has power and authority to award to a victim of unlawful termination of employment much more than he would have been entitled to for the period of notice the employer would have given him to terminate the employment, referring to Section 19, National Industrial Court Act, 2006. In urging the Court to award compensation, learned Counsel prayed the Court to consider the circumstances of this case pointing out that the Claimant within four years of his employment by the Defendant progressed to the level of Manager in the Victoria garden City Branch of the Defendant; that he was on a yearly salary of =N=7,968,000.00; that when the Claimant's employment was wrongfully terminated in January 2013, the Claimant was just four months away from entitlement to gratuity of Five Million Naira with the Defendant and that evidence has been led to prove that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was contrary to the provisions guiding the Claimant's contract of employment with the Defendant and that it is in the conscious reality of the hardship, deprivation, agony and embarrassment suffered by victims of wrongful termination of employment that the National Assembly enacted Section 19 of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006. Counsel urged the Court to award compensation to the Claimant accordingly. Respecting issue 3, learned Counsel submitted that Exh. D4 termed ''end of service statement as at exit date'' which is probably the nearest relevant document on the alleged indebtedness of the Claimant to the Counter claimant is not helpful to the case of the counter claimant. Counsel submitted that Exh. D4 is merely a breakdown of the allowances to the Claimant; that the portion indicating his agreement to any indebtedness to the counter claimant was not endorsed or executed by the Claimant and that the indebtedness has not been proved. Learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue against the Counter claimant. Finally Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the counter claims and grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant except prayers B and C as contained in the writ of summons and the statement of facts. On 19/6/15, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 5-page Reply on Points of Law. It was dated 18/6/15. I read the 5-page document. Although it was designed as and indeed ought ordinarily to be a Reply on Points of Law, it turned out to be nothing other than taking a second bite at the cherry. It was a mere re-argument of Defendant's position on the processes filed by the Claimant which was not regularised. It was not a reply to any new or fresh point of law as claimed. There is nothing contained in it which is of any value to warrant inclusion in this Judgment. I thus discountenance same. I read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I listened to and watched the demeanour of the witnesses called at trial, evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in addition to listening to the oral submissions of Counsel in adopting their final written addresses in this case. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case down to the following - 1. Whether the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to be compensated. 3. Whether the Defendant has proved its counter claim to be entitled to same. Respecting issue 1, it is trite to state that employment relationships are more often than not contractual in nature with the applicable terms and conditions apparent. Thus, in event of disputes, the intervention of the Court is restricted to construing the terms and conditions as agreed to. See Anifowoshe v. Wema bank Plc (2015) LPELR-24811. The terms and conditions of employment contract are usually contained in one or two of three different documents. They may be contained in a letter or offer of employment where there is one. On the other hand they may simply be incorporated into a formal contract document. Thirdly, the applicable terms and conditions may be contained in a separate document sometimes referred to as Staff Handbook, Staff Manual or Employees' Policy Manual, (referred to as Personnel Policies and Procedure Guide (PPPG) in the instant case).. This last document is usually given to employees upon resumption or commencement of employment with the employer. Thus while, offer or contract of employment may not address details of the employment relationship, the Staff Manual, Employees' Handbook or Employees Policy Manual usually addresses in detail the rights, obligations and liabilities of one to the other. It is trite law that where there is a document or series of documents incorporating the terms and conditions of an employment, a Court should not look outside those terms in deciding the rights and obligations of parties to same. See Gumel JCA in Jowan & Ors. v Delta Steel Co. Limited (2010) LPELR-4377. I hold in the instant case that Exh. C4 - Defendant's Pesonnel Policies and Procedure Guide (PPPG) is part of the documents incorporating the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimant which this Court is bound to examine for the just determination of this case. It is certainly not the law that a party will be allowed to resile from such a document where one exists. The Court will also not add to or remove from the content of a clear and unambiguous document. See Rangaza v. Mien Plastic Co. Limited (2013) LPELR-20303 (CA). In order to determine whether or not the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated, the law requires the Claimant to lay before the Court the terms and conditions regulating his employment and how the termination of same was not in compliance with the agreed terms and conditions. Exh. C1 and Exh. C4 are of relevant consideration here. While the former is the letter of employment, the latter is the Defendant's Personnel Policies and Procedure Guide (PPPG). Exh. C1 does not contain any grounds upon which either party may terminate the relationship. It merely states, relating to period of notice, that - ''During probation, staff is required to give minimum of two weeks written notice of intention to resign his/her employment with the bank. On confirmation, the minimum notice period is one month. The Bank undertakes to give a minimum of one month notice of any termination of employment or will pay salary in lieu thereof''. Now, Exh. C4 provides a much more detailed policy statement and procedure relating to staff matters. Among others, the exhibit provides regarding Terms and Conditions of Employment paragraph 3.0; General Conduct, Code of Ethics and Communication Policy paragraph 4.0; Discipline and Grievance Procedure paragraph 5.0; Staff Training and Development paragraph 6.0 and General Staff Welfare. Remuneration and Benefits paragraph 7.0. Termination of appointment is one of the disciplinary measures contained in paragraph 5.2 of Exh. C4. On page 19, Exh. C4 states, inter alia, that an employee's appointment may be terminated on any of the following grounds - i. Malingering (i . e pretending illness in order to avoid work); ii. Regular absenteeism; iii. Habitual lateness; iv. Unsatisfactory performance (based on performance appraisal); v. Rudeness to any of the Bank's customers; vi. Drawing of Cheques on unfunded accounts; vii. Insubordination, insolence or any other form of unsatisfactory conduct; viii. Refusal to work or carry out lawful instructions; ix. Engaging in any business that conflicts with the Bank's interest and x. Commission of any other offence of similar gravity as those described above. Exh. C4 was a document made by the Defendant to regulate its relationship with its employees. When the exhibit was tendered, no objection was raised regarding the admissibility of same. It is apparent that from the content of that exhibit, the Defendant had clearly stated the grounds upon which it could terminate the employment of any of its employees. The grounds are as stated above in this Judgment. Having therefore reduced into writing the available grounds for termination of employment, the Defendant is bound to comply with its own personnel policies and procedure guide in the conduct of its relationship with its employee. Now, Exh. C7 is the letter of termination of employment issued to the Claimant. Paragraph 1 of that exhibit merely stated that ''We write to inform you that your services are no longer required''. From the applicable portion of Exh. C4 it is obvious that none of the grounds stated for termination of employment is contained in Exh. C7. I find and hold that in terminating the employment of the Claimant or any of its employees, the Defendant can only act within the stated grounds as contained in Exh. C4. Any termination of employment outside of and without compliance with the policies and procedure as contained in Exh. C4 is therefore wrongful. I, thus in the circumstances find and hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful for none compliance with the provisions of Exh. C4. I therefore resolve issue 1 in favour of the Claimant. The second issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to be compensated for the wrongful termination of his employment. The law is trite in an employment not covered with statutory flavour, the Court cannot and will not make an order of reinstatement. This is on the obvious rationale that the Court will not foist a willing employee on an unwilling employer. The law is also reasonably and fairly settled that in a claim for wrongful termination of employment, the measure of damages is the entitlement of the Claimant in lieu of notice. See Al-Bishark v. National Productivity Centre and Anor. (2015) LPELR-24659 . However, Section 19(c) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria Act, 2006 empowers this Court to make an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear. The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration)Act, 2010 is one such legislation of the National Assembly which confers jurisdiction on the National Industrial Court of Nigeria on certain matters and causes. That statute in section 254C(1) confers jurisdiction on this Court - ''(a). relating to or connected with any labour, employment, trade unions, industrial relations and matters arising from workplace, the conditions of service, including health, safety, welfare of labour, employee, worker and matters incidental thereto or connected therewith''. The combined reading of Section 19(c), National Industrial Court Act, 2006 and section 254C(1)(a) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (Third Alteration)Act, 2010 sufficiently empowers this Court to award compensation in appropriate cases. I hold that the present case is one in which this Court is empowered to so act. Were this Court to ordinarily award damages to the Claimant, it could not award more than a month's salary in lieu of notice to which the Claimant is entitled. What then are the circumstances of this case which support the Claimant's request for compensation? Firstly, this Court has found that the termination of the employment of the Claimant is wrongful for none compliance with the terms and conditions as laid down by the Defendant. Secondly, I find by the uncontroverted averment of the Claimant that the termination of his employment was effected ''as a ruse or scheme to ensure that he does not become entitled to gratuity'' (see paragraph 57 of the Statement of Facts) and that he was only three months away from entitlement to gratuity that would have amounted to no less than five million naira'' (See paragraph 58 of the Statement of Facts). I hold that considering the circumstances of this case and the events surrounding the wrongful termination of the employment of the Claimant the Claimant is entitled to compensation in the sum of Three Million Naira (=N=3,000,000.00) The Defendant is thus ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Three Million Naira (=N=3,000,000.00) only as compensation for unlawful termination of the Claimant's appointment. The third issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved its counter claim to be entitled to same. The Defendant sought the following counter claims -1. The sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand, Three Hundred and Four Naira, Sixty Kobo (=N=1,225,304.60) being the Claimant’s indebtedness to the Defendant comprising the unpaid loan and upfront allowances paid to the Claimant which he did not earn for the period he rendered no services to the Defendant; 2. Interest on the adjudged sum against the Claimant at 21.5% per annum being the Defendant’s prime lending rate from 19th May 2013 till judgment is delivered and thereafter at 10% per annum until the judgment debt is fully and finally liquidated as stated in the Defendant’s letter dated 20th February 2013 and 3.Legal costs/expenses incurred in this Suit as may be assessed by the Court. The law is settled that a counter claim is a separate suit of its own. Thus while the Claimant is expected to lead credible, cogent and admissible evidence in support and proof of his claims, the Defendant/Counterclaimant is equally under an obligation to so prove his counter claims to be entitled to a grant. In the absence of such credible, cogent and admissible evidence, the counterclaims will be dismissed. See A.G. Anambra State & Ors. v. Ezeme & Ors. (2014) LPELR-24342. The sum claimed as counter claim is said to comprise of unpaid loan and allowances not earned. Ordinarily, loan is contractual in nature the existence of which ought reasonably to be evidenced by some form of documentation. Such documentation will include an application for a loan, the approval of same as well evidence of payment or disbursement of the loan applied for. In much the same, payment of allowances to the tune of the amount being claimed as counter claim must have some traces of the payment. In the instant case, the evidence tendered by the Defendant/Counter claimant in proof of this counter claim is Exh. D4. That document carries the name of the Defendant and the title ''End of Service Statement as at Exit date''. That exhibit was prepared, authorised and approved by the Defendant and signed by three staff of the Defendant. Although there is a portion to be endorsed by the Claimant as agreeing to the content of that exhibit, the Claimant did not endorse same. There is also no explanation as to why he did not sign that important exhibit. I hold that that exhibit is not a credible and cogent evidence to support the counter claim sought by the Defendant/Counterclaimant. I therefore refuse the counter claim and dismissed same accordingly. The claim for interest on the sum counter claimed as well as legal cost/expenses incurred by the Defendant/Counter claimant are ancillary reliefs. Their success is predicated on the success of the main counter claim. The sum counter claimed is the pillar upon which counter claim for interest and legal cost rest. It portends therefore that where the main or principal counter claim fails, the ancillary claims must certainly fail. In the instant case, this Court has already dismissed the counterclaim for sum of One Million, Two Hundred and Twenty-five Thousand, Three Hundred and Four Naira, Sixty Kobo (=N=1,225,304.60) being the Claimant’s indebtedness to the Defendant comprising the unpaid loan and upfront allowances paid to the Claimant which he did not earn for the period he rendered no services to the Defendant. Having done so, there is no support base for these tow ancillary claims. After all it is trite that you cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. Therefore I refuse and dismiss the counter claims for interest as well as claim for legal cost/expenses incurred in this suit by the Defendant/Counter claimant. Finally, and for the avoidance of doubt, 1. I find and hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful for none compliance with the provisions of Exh. C4. 2. The Defendant is thus ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Three Million Naira (=N=3,000,000.00) only as compensation for unlawful termination of the Claimant's appointment. 3. I refuse and dismiss all the counter claims of the Defendant/Counter claimant in their entirety for absence of cogent and credible evidence. 4. The Defendant/Counter Claimant is to pay to the Claimant cost of this proceedings assessed at Fifty Thousand Naira (=N=50,000.00) only. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge