Download PDF
REPRESENTATION J.O. Igwe for the Claimants. B.B. Arekameh with M.B Ibhadon for the Defendant. JUDGMENT The Claimants instituted this action on the 22/6/12, praying the Court for the following reliefs - i. A declaration of this Honourable Court that the termination of the appointments of the Claimants by the Defendant without complying with the terms of their letters of employment, amounts to a breach of contract of employment between the parties, and as such constitute a wrongful dismissal. ii. A declaration that the failure/refusal of the Defendant to provide the Claimants Lunch, Leave Allowance, and Medical Care, during their period of employment (as contained in their employment letters) also amounts to a breach of contract of employment between the parties. iii. An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay to the Claimants the sum of =N=1,572,000.00 (One Million Five Hundred and Seventy-Two Thousand Naira) being the total sum of their one month salaries which the Defendant refused to pay to them in lieu of one month notice. Particulars of Claimants' Monthly Salary 1st Claimant - =N=42,500 2nd to 14th Claimants - =N=520,000 (N40,000 per Claimant). 15th to 20th Claimants - =N=210,000=N=35,000 per Claimant). 21st to 43rd Claimants - =N=690,000 (N30,000 per Claimant). 44th to 45th Claimants - =N=110,000 (N55,000 per Claimant). Total =N=1,572,000 iv. An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay to the Claimants the sum of =N=1,145,000 (One Million One Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand Naira) being the total sum of the Cooperative contribution (ICBC Union Dues) of =N=1,000 monthly deduced from the Claimants’ salaries on monthly basis up to the month of November and December, 2011 when their appointments were respectively terminated. Particulars of =N=1,000.00 Monthly Contribution 1st to 9th Claimants 2yrs & 5months =N=261,000 10th to 13th Claimants 1yr & 10 months =N=88,000 14th to 15th Claimants 1yr & 4 months =N=32,000 16th Claimant 1yr =N=12,000 17th & 18th Claimants 10 months =N=20,000 19th & 20th Claimants 9 months =N=18,000 21st to 33rd Claimants 2yrs & 6months =N=390,000 34th to 42nd Claimants 2yrs & 4months =N=252,000 43rd Claimant 2yrs & 2months =N=14,000 44th Claimant 2yrs & 6months =N=30,000 45th Claimant 2yrs 4months =N=28,000 Total =N=1,145,000 v. An order of this Honourable court mandating the Defendant to pay to the Claimants the total sum of =N=4,702,500.00 (Four Million Seven Hundred and Two Thousand Five Hundred Naira) being their terminal Benefit/Severance pay. Particulars of Terminal Benefit/Severance Pay 1st Claimant - Basic Salary of =N=42,500 x 3 (Service yr) = =N=127,500. 2nd to 9th Claimants - B/S of N40,000 x 3 (Service yr) = =N=1560.00. 10th to 13th Claimants - B/S of N40,000 x 2 (Service yr) = =N=320,000. 14th Claimant - B/S of =N=40,000 x 2 (Service yrs) = =N=80,000. 15th Claimant - B/S of =N=35,000 x 2 (Service yrs) = =N=70,000. 16th Claimant - B/S of =N=35,000 X 1(Service yr) = =N=35,000. 17th & 18th Claimants - B/S of =N=35,000 x 1 (Service yr) = =N=70,000. 19th & 20th Claimants - B/S of =N=35,000 x 1 (Service yr) = =N=70,000. 21st to 33rd Claimants - B/S of =N=30,000 x 3 (Service yr) = =N=1,170,000. 34th to 42nd Claimants - B/S of =N=30,000 x 3 (Service yr) = =N=810,000. 43rd Claimant - B/S of =N=30,000 x 2 (Service yrs) = =N=60,000. 44th Claimant - B/S of =N=55,000 x 3 ( Service yrs) = =N=165,000. 45th Claimant - B/S of =N=55,000 x 3 (Service yrs) = =N=165,000. Total - =N=4,702,500 vi. An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendants to provide to the Claimants their Tax Clearance Certificates for the amounts deducted from their salaries as Tax, or be refunded the total sum deducted from their monthly salaries as Tax, should the Defendant be unable to provide the Claimants’ Tax Clearance Certificate. vii. An order of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to pay to the Claimants the total sum of =N=45,000,000.00 (Forty-Five Million Naira) being general damages for breach of contract of employment including the accrued annual leave to which the claimants were entitled but never had. viii. The sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) being the cost of this action. In response, the Defendant on the 27th day of August, 2012 filed a 31 paragraphs statement of defence, witness deposition on oath and all frontloaded processes as required by the Rules of this Court. The hearing of this case commenced on 18/11/13. The Claimants called 3 witnesses. One Mrs. Falana Taiwo testified as CW1. She adopted her witness statement on oath made on 20/4/13 as her evidence in chief and tendered two documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. C1 & Exh. C2. The case of the Claimants is that they were employees of the Defendant; that on 15/6/09 and 1/7/09, the 1st – 8th Claimants and the 9th Claimant were offered employment by the Defendant respectively as Bus Pilots; that on 1/1/10, the 10th – 13th Claimants were offered employment by the Defendant; on the 1/7/10, the 14th and 15th Claimants were offered employment by the Defendant; on the 15/11/10, the 16th Claimant was offered employment by the Defendant on 1/1/11, the 17th & 18th Claimants were offered employment by the Defendant; and on the 15/2/11, the 19th & 20th Claimants were offered employment by the Defendant; that the 1st – 20th Claimants were all offered employment as Bus Pilots by the Defendant; that on 15/6/09, the 21st – 27th Claimants were offered employment by the defendant; on 26/6/09, the 28th and 29th Claimants were offered employment by the Defendant; on 15/6/09, the 30th – 33rd Claimants were offered employment by the Defendant; on the 3/8/09, the 34th – 41st Claimants were offered employment by the defendant; on the 3/8/09, the 42nd claimant was offered employment by the defendant; and on the 2/10/09, the 43rd claimant was offered employment by the defendant and that the 21st to 43rd Claimants were all offered employment by the Defendant as Bus Officers. It is also the case of the Claimants that on the 26/6/09, and the 3rd of August, 2009, the 44th and 45th claimants were offered employment by the defendant as Bus Inspectors; that the Claimants employment were all confirmed by the defendant; that part of the terms of the Claimants employment as contained in their employment letter include provision of lunch during official break hours, two weeks annual leave, and medical care; that the Claimants worked diligently and observed the company’s operational schedule, yet they were all unjustly denied all these allowances during the period of their employment. Claimants further averred that on 10/11/11the 1st to 20th Claimants (Bus Pilots) received a letter from the defendant which terminated their employments with immediate effect, without prior one month notice given to them or one month salary paid them in lieu of notice, as required by their respective letters of employment; that on 16/12/11 the 21st to 43rd Claimants (Bus Officers) received from the Defendant a letter dated 6/12/11, which terminated their respective appointments with immediate effect, without prior one month notice given to them or one month salary paid them in lieu of one month notice, as required by their respective letter of employment; that on 8/12/11, the 44th to 45th Claimants (Bus Inspectors) received a letter dated 8/12/11, terminating their respective appointments with immediate effect, without prior one month notice given to them or one month salary paid them in lieu of one month notice, as required by their respective letters of employment; that the Claimants’ appointments were summarily terminated, not because they were found, in any way, wanting in the execution of their duties or committed any offence, but because of what the management of the Defendant termed “Re-Organisation of the Bus Franchise Scheme (BFS)”; that within the period of the Claimants’ respective employments, the Defendant compelled them to be part of the Defendant’s Finance Scheme and compulsorily deduct the sum of One Thousand Naira monthly per person from their salaries, which contribution the Defendant call ICBC Union Dues; that the Claimants made this contribution on monthly basis out of their meager salaries, but after their wrongful dismissal, the Defendant neglected, failed, and/or refused to refund to them the huge amount of money they have paid into the coffers of the Defendant as cooperative contribution. Claimants added that every month, the Defendant deducts some amount of money from the Claimants’ meager salaries as tax deductions, but up till the time of the termination of their appointments, the Defendant had not issued them any Tax Clearance Certificate as evidence that the Claimants pay their taxes and also to prove that the said Tax Deductions were actually remitted into the State coffers; that within the entire period of their respective employments, the Claimants have observed the Defendant’s bus crew code of conduct to the letter, and had never violated any of the rules or policies/procedure of their employer, and they have rendered invaluable selfless services to the Defendant, thus they deserve terminal Benefit/Severance pay upon the termination of their respective appointments, but the Defendants decided to unjustly send them away empty handed, after years of committed and sacrificial service to the Defendant and that the Claimants made several efforts to appeal to the conscience of the Defendant so as to make them sensitive to their plight and pay them their entitlements, but the Defendant has till this moment ignored/refused to comply and that the refusal of the Defendant to comply with the claimants’ demand led to the institution of this suit. Under cross examination, CW1 stated that her duty was to monitor Buses carrying passengers, record performance of the buses and so on for the Defendant; that the Defendant has 50 Buses; that there were 100 Drivers called Pilots for 50 Buses; that there were 50 Inspectors and that she could not remember the number of Bus Conductors. According to the witness, the Buses are called Bus Franchise Scheme (BFS); that she knows Igbatuntun City Bus Service; that she was a member of Igbatuntun City Bus Service under Duress; that they were told even before employment that once employed a Staff automatically becomes a member of Igbatuntun City Bus Service; that they had no choice than to be; that she filled a membership form of Igbatuntun City Bus Service; that other staff also filled the membership form of Igbatuntun City Bus Service as she did; that the road of the route of the Bus was bad; that though at that time the route staff was more than the Bus the Company still recruited more staff; that she worked 3 or 4 days in a week and between 15 and 16 days in a month; that she later became Sales Executive of the Defendant with a mandate to raise funds for the Company; that she is aware from information from the Management that Skye Bank financed the purchase of the Buses; that she knows that the loan has to be paid back and the Company was paying; that the Management of the Defendant said they were paying back the loan; that she is not employed presently; that she is not a widow; that she is not aware that Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative is different from the Defendant; that Defendant and Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative are the same; that throughout her employment Defendant did not owe her salary; that some Inspectors not laid off are still working with Defendant and that the Defendant did not lay her off because of her low output. One Mr. Demola Daniel was called as CW2. CW2 adopted his statement on oath made on 15/10/12 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The 4 documents were admitted and marked as Exh. C3 - Exh. C6. Under cross examination. the witness testified that he lives at Ogijo; that one of his duties is to collect Bus tickets from passengers; that he remember there was ticket racketing while he was with the Defendant which lasted for about a month; that he is representing himself and other Bus Officers in this case; that the Bus Officers were about 100 then; that he was a member of Igbatuntun City Bus Service; that he was transferred as a Bus Officer to the Workshop due to his hard work; that it was a promotion; that he is aware that =N=1,000.00 deducted from my salary monthly and from others too was being remitted to Igbatuntun City Cooperative as Union dues; that he remembered in 2009 that a meeting was held where the Management of Defendant said they would bring in more Buses. Defendant brought in some Tata Buses which did not last but withdrawn. Witness added that Tax was deducted from his salary and he was given Tax Clearance; that they were making enough rounds despite the bad roads and the repairs; that about 100 Bus Officers were employed at the inception with 50 Buses; that there were Bus Inspectors and Schedule Officers over the 50 Buses; that there was Operation Manager, General Manager and Finance Manager; that he is aware of Bus Franchise Scheme; that he was told that Skye Bank financed the purchase of the Buses; that they were not inform of the financial state of the Defendant at any time and that he received a query from Defendant in 2009 bothering on late coming. Under re-examination, CW2 said he does not know if the Skye Bank prints the Bus ticket but its logo is there. The third witness for the Claimants was one Ayeni Oladele Francis. He adopted his statement on oath dated 15/10/12 as his evidence in chief and tendered 7 documents. The documents were admitted and marked as Exh. FA1-Exh. FA7. Under cross examination, CW3 testified that was employed as a Driver by the Defendant and worked for Defendant 2 years 6 months; that he knows the 44 Claimants; that he represents the other Claimants as Star witness; that he abided by the Defendant’s Operational Code; that he was issued 3 queries while working with Defendant; that he replied the queries; that he knows Bus Franchise Scheme; that he knows Lagos Metropolitan Transport Authority; that he knows Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative; that he was compelled to join Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative; that he was compelled to fill membership form of Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative; that Defendant and Igbatuntun are joint operators; that he is not aware that most of the Claimants were issued queries; that the heading of Exhibit FA3 is titled “Reorganisation” but the body of it termination of employment.; that the Defendant started with 50 Buses and 100 Pilots; that there were about 30 Bus Officers; that he could not remember the number of Inspectors; that no meeting was called after Claimants appointment were terminated; that he did not in company of any other Claimants vandalise the office of the Defendant; that he was 46 years in 2011 and that it is not true that he is not entitled to gratuity. According to the witness, ICBC contribution was deducted from all the staff; that he approached President of Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative several times to ask about their contributions and the way forward; that he did not voluntarily join Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative; that he borrowed money from the ICBC and paid back; that he does not if if other Claimants also borrowed money from ICBC; that he was not appointed as a leader of the Claimants; that while with Defendant it was a one day on and one day off of 16 hours on the road; that on his off days he rested; that ICBC and Defendant are joint operators of the Scheme and LAMATA the Regulators; that LAMATA did not employ hi but rather they are the Regulators that he did not have any accident while working with the Defendant and that the road was very good and they were making returns to the Defendant. In re-examination, CW3 stated that some part of the road with pot holes were being resurfaced at about the time. On 6/5/14, the Defendant opened its case and called Ifeanyi Chima as its lone witness. DW1 adopted his statement on oath made on 27/8/12 as his evidence in chief and tendered 15 documents as exhibits. the documents were admitted and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D15. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimants were not unjustly treated and their employments were not unjustly terminated in any way whatsoever; that the reason for terminating the claimants’ employment was due to the fact that the defendant had to undergo re-organisation if it were to avoid bankruptcy owing to tight economic conditions at that particular point in time; that the Claimants who were employed as bus pilots became redundant owing to shortage of buses as a result of the withdrawal of 50 buses from the defendant fleet of buses; that claimants who were employed as bus officers had to be paid off due to the scrapping of their scheme of operation hence they became redundant; that the Defendant had always provided lunch to all its staff including the claimants; but when the defendant discovered that lunch breaks was having a negative impact on productivity, as it affects the peak periods of conveying commuters; that the provision of lunch was monetized and not stopped, notwithstanding that the claimants received monthly meal allowance as evidently shown in their pay slips; that due to the nature of their jobs and the demand for bus service in the Lagos metropolis; that the claimants observed casual leaves during the pendency of their employment; that the 1st – 20th claimants as bus pilots were entitled and given a day off work and a day on intermittently, while the 21st to 45th claimants worked two days on and a day off; that the 44th claimant was granted annual leave when she was redeployed as a bus inspector to a sales executive with all the benefits accruing to that office and that all the Defendant’s staff including the claimants were covered under the HMO scheme which extended to each of the staff before it had to be discontinued. It was part of the case for the Defendant that none of the Claimants were ever denied access to their funds in ICPC which is a cooperative society with links to registered trade union; that the defendant had only facilitated the monthly deduction of =N=1000.00 from the claimants’ salary as requested by ICBC as regards the monthly salary; that the defendant is a responsible organization which does not fail in its responsibility as a tax payer; every money deducted from the claimants salaries have been remitted to the Lagos State government coffers; that none of the staff of the Defendant has requested for their tax clearance certificate and who filled forms have not been issued same, except for those whose forms are still under processing with the Lagos State Internal Revenue Board; that the Claimants all violated the rules of the bus crew Code of Conduct ranging from serious offences such as gross negligence, unruly behavior, abandonment of duty, absenteeism from bus pilot training, fighting on duty etc. none of the claimants were denied what rightly due to them despite the serious financial crisis facing the defendant’s company; that the 4th, 9th, 11th and 12th Claimants have been fully paid their pensions and gratuities having reached the age of 50 and above; that the 13th, 32nd and 38th claimants have also been given letters to collect 25% of their pension gratuity from the defendant’s pension managers as they have reached the pensionable age of 50; that the claimants who are yet to be paid have not attained the age of 50; that it did not in any way whatsoever cause any hardship or suffering to the claimants nor has it denied the claimants their entitlement but has always treated the claimants magnanimously and shown concern for the welfare of its workers including the claimants even as it is faced with dire financial constraints and that the 44th Claimant is the only staff who was widowed during her employment, and that she was granted loan which was converted to grants on compassionate grounds owing to her status as a widow. The Defendant's lone witness testified in chief on 6/5/14 and the matter was adjourned for cross examination. On 24/6/14, 10/11/14 and 13/1/15 the DW1 was not available for cross examination. This witness was subsequently not presented for cross examination by the Defendant. Thus on 13/1/15, learned Counsel to the Defendant applied to close the case of the Defendant having expressed difficulties in getting DW1 to be present for cross examination. At the close of hearing, the Court directed learned Counsel on either side to file their final written addresses for adoption in accordance with the Rules of Court. Only the learned Counsel for the Claimants filed a final written address. It was dated 2/7/15 but filed on 3/7/15. In it learned Counsel set down the following two issues for determination - 1. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Defendant breached the terms of the contract of employment it entered with the Claimants, and whether the claimants' dismissal was lawful and constitute a wrongful dismissal. 2. Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs sought in their statement of facts before this court. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted, citing Eze v. Spring Bank Plc, that in order to determine whether the dismissal of an employee is right or wrong, the fundamental consideration is to examine the contract of employment between the parties; that an employee must place before the Court his contract of employment and prove in what manner the said terms of contract were breached by the employer citing Katto v. CBN (1996)6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390, Amode v. Amode (1990)5 NWLR (Pt. 150) 356 and that the Claimants have placed all their appointment letters before the Court and that the exhibits tendered and admitted showed that the Claimants have a common term and conditions of employment. Counsel further pointed out that by the terms and conditions of Claimants' employment, they were entitled to a month notice or a month salary in lieu for termination of their employment to be effective; that Claimants were neither given a month notice nor paid a month salary in lieu and citing Friday U. Abalogu v. The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited (2003)6 SC (Pt. II) 19 at 37 learned Counsel submitted that where notice is made a condition precedent to termination of an agreement, notice or payment in lieu thereof must be fulfilled. According to learned Counsel, it was the evidence of the 3rd Claimant's witness on oath that the terms of their employment include provision of lunch, official break hours, two weeks annual leave and medical care but were denied all these; that the testimony of the Defence witness in paragraphs 12 and 13 of his statement on oath further attested to the fact that claimants were denied annual leave and medical services. According to learned Counsel, citing Iyase v. University of Benin Teaching Hospital Management Board (2000)2 NWLR (Pt. 643) 45 at 59 & Olaniyan & Ors. v. University of Lagos (1985)2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 669, where a contract of employment is in writing, the parties thereto are bound by the express terms and conditions stipulated therein. Counsel noted that some of the conditions of the Claimants employment are stipulated in Exh. FA4 - Bus Crew Code of Conduct which include the provision that where an employee's contract is terminated he shall be entitled to receive accrued salary and benefits up to and including the day of termination but all these terms and conditions were not complied with when the employment of the Claimant was terminated. learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that all this constitutes a breach of contract which makes the dismissal of the Claimants wrongful. Counsel added that Defendant sought to rely on redundancy for the termination of the employment of the Claimants while the letters of termination stated that it was merely due to re-organisation; that even at that, the Defendant did not follow the process laid down for termination of employment on ground of redundancy citing Section 20(1)(a), Labour Act Cap. 198, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. Citing Obe v. Nigersol Construction Company Limited (1972)2 UILR (Pt. 11) 121 & PHMB v. Ejitagba (2000)11 NWLR (Pt. 677) 154, Counsel submitted that an employer is not bound to be saddled with an unwanted staff and may terminate the services of such an employee without any reason for the termination; however, where an employer states a reason for the termination, such reason must be plausible to justify such termination of the appointment of the employer. Counsel submitted that whatever reason given by the Defendant for terminating the appointments of the Claimants whether re-organisation or redundancy is not plausible enough to justify the termination of appointments of the Claimants. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimants have calculated their respective one month salary in lieu of notice as contained in their statement of facts. Respecting refund of employees contribution under the Igbatuntun City Bus Cooperative learned Counsel submitted that by the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimants a deduction of One Thousand Naira was made monthly from the salary of the staff into the finance arrangement put together by the Defendants. The law, according to the learned Counsel, citing New Nigerian Bank Plc v. Imonike (2002) FWLR (Pt. 118) 1406 at 1428 is that ''there is no obligation to award compensation to a dismissed employee. This is without prejudice to refunding of whatever financial contribution the dismissed employees might have made into any financial scheme set up by the employer for the benefit of the employees''. Counsel thus urged the Court to hold that the Claimants are entitled to the refund of the sum as claimed in their statement of facts. Respecting Claimants' terminal benefits, learned Counsel, citing Cneinco Nigeria Limited v. Jeremiah Shaibu (1986)5 CA (Pt. 1) 99 that damages for wrongful dismissal of employment would include all accrued benefits for length of service. According to learned Counsel, by the Defendant's Bus Crew Code of Conduct ''where an employee's contract is terminated, he shall be entitled to receive accrued salary and benefits up to and including the day of termination. Such termination must be approved by the Head of HR after due consultation with the appropriate Head of Department''. Counsel pointed out that the claims for benefits as computed by the Claimants were never challenged by the Defendant either in their statement of defence or witness statement on oath and that the law is trite that unchallenged averments are deemed admitted citing Folorunso & Anor. v. Shaloub (1994)3 NWLR (Pt. 333) 413 at 433, UBN Limited v. Ogboh (1995)2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 at 669 & Moral v. Okwuanyanga (1990)1 NWLR (Pt. 125) 225 at 232. On claim for cost, Counsel submitted that compensation is the basis for awarding cost; that award of cost is to be exercised at the discretion of the trial Judge acting judicially and judiciously; that cost is not to punish unsuccessful party and that a successful party in a civil claim is as of right entitled to costs, if for nothing, to compensate a successful party for the expenses incurred in the course of proceedings citing University of Lagos v. M.I Aigoro (1985)1 NWLR (Pt. 1) 143, Olokunlade v. Samuel (2011)17 NWLR (Pt. 1276) 290 at 300 & Maya v. Oshuntokun (2001)11 NWLR (Pt. 723) 63 at 322. Counsel thus urged the Court to award cost in the sum of One Million Naira to the Claimants. Finally, learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant to the Claimants all the reliefs sought. I read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel in this case. I listened with attention to the testimonies of all the witnesses called at trial as well as watched their demeanor. I addition to all this, I listened to the oral submissions of Counsel, reviewed and evaluated all the evidence tendered and admitted along the facts as presented and the state of the law. Having done all this, I set down a lone issue for the just determination of this case as follows - Whether all or any of the Claimants have proved their entitlement to any or all the reliefs sought. It remains trite that the Court is not a Father Christmas, see Agbi v. Ogbeh (2006) LPELR-240 SC, that will give once a request is made. Not only must a claim be made. In order to receive, the claim must be proved by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. See Health Care Product Nigeria Limited v. Bazza (2004)3 NWLR (Pt. 861) 582, 605-606. This is aptly reflected in the old saying that he who asserts must prove. This is not just a case-law matter but also statutorily backed. It is equally important to note that a Claimant cannot decline from proving his case s imply because the case of the Defendant is weak or because the Defendant does not put forward any defence safe for in case of admission. The law is trite that a servant who complains of wrongful termination of his employment or dismissal from same must exhibit and prove his contract of his service which is the bedrock of his case, see Ansambe v. B.O.N Limited (2005) NWLR (Pt. 928) 655. In proof of their case, the Claimants called 1st, 27th and 44th Claimants as witnesses. The witnesses tendered a total of 13 exhibits in all. Exh. C1 & Exh. C2 tendered by CW1 are his letters of employment and of confirmation of employment respectively. Exh. C3-Exh. C6 tendered by CW2 are letters of employment and of confirmation of employment dated 1/6/09 and 1/6/10 respectively, Letter of Redeployment dated 30/6/10 and letter of reorganisation (termination) dated 6/12/11 respectively. Respecting CW3 the exhibits tendered, admitted and marked as Exh. FA1-Exh. FA7 are letters of employment and of confirmation, letter of re-organisation, letter dated 3/2/11 from Forum for the Promotion of Human Rights, letter from Counsel dated 10/2/12 and Defendant's Code of Conduct to employees. These exhibits are strictly in relation to the case of the CW1-CW3. The law is trite that in an action for wrongful termination or dismissal, the contract of service is the focus of the Court for construction. The burden is on the employee to put forward his contract of service and show to the Court how and in what manner the breach of same has taken place. See Fakuade v. O.A.U.T.H (1993)5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47 & Idoniboye-Obe v. NNPC (2003)2 NWLR (Pt. 805) 589 & 630. Exh. C1, Exh. C3 & Exh. FA1 are the letters of employment of the 1st, 27th & 44th Claimants. Similar documents were not tendered on behalf of 2nd-26th, 28th-43rd and 45 Claimants. However, the letters of employment of all the other Claimants were frontloaded, served on the Defendant with copies of same being in the file of the Court. The law is trite and long accepted that a trial Court is entitled to look into, consider and use any documents in its file for the purpose of doing justice to a cause or matter before it. See Agbareh v. Mimra (2008)2 NWLR (Pt. 1071) 378 at 411-412. A Court is also permitted by law to draw inferences from evidence on record such as documents for the purpose of reaching the justice of a case before it. See Adebayo & Ors. v PDP & Ors. (2013)221 LRCN 69 at 122 and Olorunke v. Adigun (2012)All FWLR (Pt. 614) 139. Having perused the letters of employment of the Claimants in this case as frontloaded, I note that the letters, except for the individual names of the Claimants as written on them, the monthly salaries & allowances and the dates, the content is the same for all intents and purposes. Apart from those differences as stated, it is imperative that I reproduce part of the contents of the letters as follows - ''These are subject to monthly deductions of tax, pension and union dues. You will be on probation for six months after which subject to satisfactory work, conduct and upon the receipt of letters of attestation from two referees; your appointment will be confirmed. Before confirmation, the employment may be terminated by either party giving fourteen days notice in writing or by payment of fourteen days salary in lieu thereof. After confirmation, termination may be effected by one month notice by either side or one month basic salary in lieu. You are required to work according to the company’s operational schedule. Lunch would be served during the official break hour. You will be entitled to 2(two) weeks annual leave. The company will take care of your medical needs. However, you are expected to present a detailed medical report from the company’s appointed hospital. On assumption of duty, please report to your immediate supervisor for other details. If you are in agreement with the above terms and conditions and you wish to accept the appointment herein offered; please sign and return the attached copy to the undersigned. We welcome you and are pleased to have you as a member of our staff. We hope your employment with Mint Seal Services is a long and happy one''. I hold that these letters of appointment constitute a contract between the parties in this case. They established a relationship between the Claimants and the Defendant. The terms and conditions in these letters are meant to be obeyed and observed by parties on either side. A major term and condition in these letters of appointment is that once the appointment of the Claimants are confirmed, they are entitled to a month notice or payment of a month's basic salary in lieu of such notice. Exh. C2, Exh. C4 and Exh. FA2 are the letters of confirmation of employment of CW1, CW2 & CW3 respectively. I also find in the record of the Court copies of the letters of confirmation of appointment of all other Claimants in this case as frontloaded by the Claimants. Indeed the letters which have the same content safe for names of individual employees, stated in paragraph 2 that - ''The confirmation of the appointment was sequel to your satisfactory performance and conduct during the probationary period and the subsequent recommendation from your department''. The letter terminating the employment of CW3 is Exh. FA3. It is the same in terms of major contents as the ones served on the other Claimants and frontloaded copies of which are in the Court's file. By paragraph 2 of the said letters, the services of the Claimants were no longer required with immediate effect. The Claimants were all entitled to a month notice or payment of a month basic salary in lieu of notice. No notice was given and I find no evidence of payment of a month basic salary as contained in their letters of employment. I find, hold and declare that the termination of the employments of the Claimants by the Defendant without complying with the terms of their letters of employment amounts to a breach of contract of employment and constitute a wrongful termination. Secondly, not having been given the requisite notice, I direct and order the Defendant to pay to each of the Claimants their one month basic salary in lieu of notice as contained in their respective letters of employment their appointment having been confirmed. The Claimant also claimed the sum of One Million, One Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Naira being the total sum of the Cooperative contribution of One Thousand Naira deducted from the Claimant's salaries on monthly basis up to the month of November and December 2011 when their appointments were terminated. Aside from the averments of the Claimants' witnesses, I find no cogent evidence tendered and admitted in proof of this head of claim. Now, the Claimants frontloaded copies of their pay slips. On pages 98, 102, 107 and 112 are copies of the pay slips of Owoh Mathew, Ajayi Motunrayo Afolashade, Aladeji Phillip Adewale and Olajide Esther Oluwayemisi. On perusal and examination of these pay slips, I find nothing on them indicating deduction for any Cooperative or finance scheme. Apart from deduction for Tax and Pension, the other deduction on these documents was for ''ICBC Union Due =N=1000.00''. I doubt if this is the deduction the Claimants are referring to. However, if it is, that deduction was made for the Union as the name indicates. It is not subject to a refund by the Defendant and I so hold. Should the Claimants be desirous of getting a refund, they should rather approach the Union official rather than the Defendant. This head of claim is thus refused and dismissed. The Claimants in addition claimed the sum of Four Million Seven Hundred and two Thousand Naira being their terminal benefit/severance pay. Claimants provided the particulars as to the calculation of the sums said to be due to each claimant. However, the basis of the calculation is missing. For instance, how did the Claimants arrive at the figures claimed? What is the basis for the calculation? The contract of employment which the parties entered into that is the letter of offer of employment did not make mention of any terminal benefit or severance pay and neither did the Code of Conduct of the Defendant. Besides, there is no admission by the Defendant respecting the various sums claimed by different Claimant. I find this claim not proved. There is no basis upon which this Court can award the sum claimed or any sum for that matter as terminal benefit or severance pay. I therefore have no choice than to refuse and dismiss this head of claim and I so do. The sum of Forty Five Million is claimed as general damages for breach of contract of employment including the accrued annual leave to which the Claimants were entitled but never had. The law is trite that the measure of damages for breach of contract of employment is the amount due in lieu of requisite notice. See NEPA v. Adeyemi (2007)3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 315 at 336. This Court has held that the termination of the employment of the Claimants by the Defendant is wrongful. This Court has also ordered the Defendant to pay to each Claimant one month basic salary in lieu of notice as contained in the letter of offer of employment given to the Claimants. To grant this relief as sought by the Claimant will amount to acting outside the province of the law and imposing double punishment on the Defendant. This relief is therefore refused and dismissed accordingly. The final relief sought by the Claimants is for the sum of One Million Naira as cost of this action. Both under the Rules of Court and under the case law, the power to award cost is at the discretion of the trial Judge. It is a power which must be exercised both judicially and judiciously. See Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industry v. Alfigir (Mining) Nigeria Limited (1999) LPELR-2015 SC, (1999)12 SC (Pt. 11) 169. It not meant to be exercised to punish a party who loses. See UBN Limited & Anor. v. Benjamin Nwakolo (1995)LPELR-3385 SC. Rather it is designed to compensate the wining party for reasonable expenses incurred in order to successfully ventilate his grievances. See NNPC v. Clifco Nigeria Limited (2011)LPELR-2022 SC. Considering the fact that this case was filed in 2012 and there about seventeen appearances and the file in its second volume, I award the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=100,000.00) as cost of this proceedings. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, I - 1. Declare that the termination of the employments of the Claimants by the Defendant without complying with the terms of their letters of employment amounts to a breach of contract of employment and constitute a wrongful termination. 2. Direct and order the Defendant to pay to each of the Claimants their one month basic salary in lieu of notice as contained in their respective letters of employment their appointment having been confirmed. 3. Refuse and dismiss the claim for One Million, One Hundred and Forty Five Thousand Naira being the total sum of the Cooperative contribution of One Thousand Naira deducted from the Claimant's salaries on monthly basis up to the month of November and December 2011 when their appointments were terminated there being no credible proof of same. 4. Refuse and dismiss the claim for the sum of Four Million Seven Hundred and two Thousand Naira as terminal benefit/severance pay there being no proof of same.. 5. Refuse and dismiss the claim for the sum of Forty Five Million is claimed as general damages for breach of contract of employment including the accrued annual leave to which the Claimants were entitled but never had Claimants having been awarded one month basic salary in lieu of one month notice as contained in their letters of appointment. 6. Award the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira only (=N=100,000.00) payable by the Defendant to the Claimants as cost of this action. All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days the date of delivery of same. Judgment is entered accordingly ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge