Download PDF
<p class="MediumGrid21"><b><u><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Representation</span></u></b><b><span style="font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MediumGrid21"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">C. M. Ukpabio; with him, B. C. Uzoma (Miss) for the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21"><span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Emeka Nwagwu; with him, N. I. Nwagwu, V. N. Onyeonoro (Mrs.) and C.C. Uchechukwu (Mrs.) for the Defendant<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:8.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></u></b></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:2.5in;text-align:justify"><b><u><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant instituted this action against the Defendant by way of Complaint filed on 30<sup>th</sup> October 2012 at the Enugu Division of this Court. By an amended Statement of Facts filed on the 2<sup>nd</sup> day of March 2015, the Claimant claimed as follows: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:39.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> An Order that the Claimant is still a staff of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:39.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> A Declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s employment as per letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2011 with Ref. No. D-TERM.0109120/2011 is wrongful, irregular, invalid, null and void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:39.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">An Order reinstating the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:39.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">4.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The sum of <s>N</s>6,360,853.83 (Six Million, Three Hundred and Sixty Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty Three Naira, Eighty Three Kobo) on the following heads:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:75.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">i)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3,675,641.43k, unpaid balance of gratuity/benefit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:75.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">ii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2,480,480,234.35k unpaid leave allowance for 11 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:75.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">iii)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">N204,978.05k unpaid June 2011 salary.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:39.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l5 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">5.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The sum of <s>N</s>100,000,000.00 (One Hundred Million Naira) as general damages for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Pleadings were appropriately exchanged and regularized, and preliminary applications were taken and resolved. Hearing commenced on 14<sup>th</sup> October 2013. The Claimant testified for himself as his only witness CW1. Mr. Macdonald Iheme testified as the Defendant’s only witness DW1. Hearing ended on 19<sup>th</sup> April 2016 and parties were ordered to file Final Written Addresses. These were duly regularized and respectively adopted on the 12<sup>th</sup> day of July 2016.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the Defendant’s final written address which was filed on 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2016, counsel raised two issues for determination, thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">Whether the termination of the employment of the Claimant was lawful, valid and therefore the Claimant is not entitled to be reinstated.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MediumGrid21" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l6 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant has been paid his entitlements and benefits pursuant to the termination of his employment by the Defendant</span></i></b><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue one, counsel submitted that the Claimant’s employment contract is hinged on his appointment letter which, in Paragraphs 8-12 of the Statement of Facts, the Claimant avers, subjects him to the Code of Conduct and Grievance Procedure Exhibit CCA6. Counsel submitted further that Section 3.36 of Exhibit CCA6 provides that <i>“misrepresentation of facts to the company with an intent to mislead the company and or resulting in financial loss to the company First Offence is either termination or dismissal.”</i> The Defendant’s case against the Claimant is that a fake waybill was used to facilitate the loss of about 600 bags of sugar from its depot. The Claimant and one Emeka Onyekwere were implicated and the police were involved and they were charged to court. Counsel cited the case of <b>FAKUADE vs. OAUTH (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47, 58</b> which enunciated the principle that generally, a master can terminate the contract of employment with the servant at any time and for any or no reasons, provided the terms of the contract of service are complied with. Counsel argued that the burden of proving wrongful termination of employment rests on the Claimant. See <b>AJI vs. CHAD BASIN DEVT. AUTHORITY (2015) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1486) 554</b> and <b>OKOMU OIL PALM LTD vs. ISERHIENRHIEN (2001) 6 NWLR (Pt. 710) 660</b>. It is counsel’s contention that the Claimant has failed to establish what terms of the employment the Defendant breached. Counsel contended further that from Exhibits CCA1 and CCA6, the Defendant is entitled to terminate the Claimant’s employment. Consequently, counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s relief of reinstatement and other reliefs in this suit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue two, counsel submitted that in Paragraph 45 and Paragraph 44 of the amended Statement of Facts and witness deposition respectively, the Claimant acknowledged receiving into his bank account, the sum of Three Million, One Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand, Nine Hundred and Thirty Six Naira, Eighty Four Kobo (<s>N</s>3,135,936.84). Counsel submitted further that the Claimant did not lead evidence to show that the amount paid were not sufficient settlement for his terminal benefits. On the other hand, counsel argued that the Defendant through its witness tendered Exhibit D1, which showed the entitlements of the Claimant as computed by the Defendant. More so, the said exhibit indicated that the Claimant was paid his total gratuity, his prorated annual leave, and his June 2011 salary. Counsel argued that the said Exhibit D1 shows that the Claimant is no longer being owed by the Defendant. Similarly, counsel argued further that the Claimant failed to indicate what parameter he used in calculating his benefits; unlike Exhibit D1 which is clear in this respect. Again, counsel contended that having proved that the Claimant is not owed any monies, all the reliefs in this suit fail, even the alternate prayers in the complaint which were dependent on the reliefs in the amended statement of facts for survival. See <b>MOJEKWU vs. MOJEKWU (1997) 7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 283</b>. In the same vein, counsel is of the opinion that it is through the originating process or the concluding paragraph of the Statement of Facts that the Claimant’s desires may be deciphered. See <b>AKINBOLA vs. PLISSON FISCO LTD (1991) 1 NWLR (Pt. 167) 270</b>. Counsel urged the court to consider the foregoing arguments and dismiss this suit with cost for lacking in merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the Claimant counsel’s final address filed on 22<sup>nd</sup> June 2016, counsel formulated two issues for determination, as followers:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="ColorfulList-Accent11CxSpFirst" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the requirement of fair hearing was sufficiently observed in the termination of the Claimant’s appointment by the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="ColorfulList-Accent11CxSpLast" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:justify;text-indent:-.25in;line-height: normal;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo4"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family: "Comic Sans MS";mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2.<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the grant of his claims as adumbrated in paragraph 49 of his Statement of Facts.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue one, counsel submitted that when the procedural requirements stipulated for termination of employment is not followed, the termination would be invalid, wrongful and in breach of contract. Counsel submitted further that the contract of service is the bedrock on which the case for wrongful termination must succeed or fail. The employee alleging wrongful termination must place the terms of contract before the court and prove the manner of breach. Counsel agreed with the opposing counsel that Exhibit CCA6 contains terms of contract between the parties in this instant case. Also, counsel argued that the Claimant in Paragraphs 14-30 pleaded and proved the denial of his constitutional right, which was breached by the Defendant. By the provision of Exhibit CCA6, the issue of query and hearing must be concluded within two weeks, while the case of the Claimant lasted for about a year, a manifestation of malice. This is owing to the fact that in a similar situation involving one Mr. Patrick Ihezue in the year 2011, his query was struck out; a fact that the Defendant did not deny but stated that the Claimant’s averment was false. On this note, counsel contended that the statement that the Claimant’s averment is false is insufficient because to challenge pleadings, cogent and sufficient facts must be adduced to dislodge such pleadings without relying on general transverse. See <b>UGWUNYI vs. NICON PLC (2004) 15 NWLR (Pt. 892) 612 at 631</b>. Furthermore, counsel contended that the Claimant’s appointment, which was terminated, was wrongful because the Defendant did not comply with the procedure in Exhibit CCA6 and ought to be set aside by this court. See <b>TRUSTEES OF ECWA CHURCH & ANOR vs. DELE (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 298) 1298</b>. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">On issue two, counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant had proved satisfactorily his reliefs sought, by tendering Exhibits CCA4 and CCA10. On leave allowance; the Claimant testified that the Defendant’s formula in calculating leave allowance is 100% of the monthly basic salary, in addition to the basic salary itself and that 10% of his basic monthly salary is <s>N</s>20,497.80k, while his monthly salary is <s>N</s>204,978.05k. (i.e. <s>N</s>225,475.80 x 11years) Counsel referred the court to paragraphs 31-47 of the Claimant witness’ deposition The Defendant on the other hand, in counsel’s opinion did not state the formula used in calculating the Claimant’s leave allowance to be <s>N</s>58,857.83k. The Defendant did not produce the maker of Exhibit D1 to proffer explanation on what formula was employed. The DW1 did not explain the formula, a consequence of which counsel urged the court to expunge Exhibit D1 and not attach any evidential weight to its content. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">More so, counsel argued that from the wordings of the Claimant’s termination letter, it was indicated that a separate sheet stating the exact details of his terminal benefits would be given to the Claimant. On this note, counsel submitted that a pleaded document admitted in evidence cannot be discredited by oral evidence. See <b>ADUN vs. OBAYUNANA (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 819) 1135</b>. Thus, the fact that the Claimant was not given a separate sheet is proven and DW1’s admission under cross- examination that the Claimant was supposed to collect the sheet from the Defendant is weightless to vary Exhibit CCA4’s contents. Counsel urged the court to hold that the sum of <s>N</s>58,857.83k cannot stand as the Claimant’s unpaid leave allowances for 11 years. On the issue of unpaid balance of gratuity/benefit, Counsel argued that the Claimant has proved same on the preponderance of evidence. In his evidence, the Claimant stated that the formula used by the Defendant in calculating gratuity is the annual basic salary multiplied by the number of years spent multiplied by 8 weeks, divided by 52 weeks. It is counsel’s further argument that this formula was not used by the Defendant and the Defendant did not indicate which formula it used, hence the unpaid balance of gratuity. Similarly, the formula averred to by the Claimant in paragraphs 41-45 of the Statement of Facts was not denied to be incorrect by the Defendant. Counsel cited the case of <b>OMOLE vs. COLODENSE PLC (2011) 10 WRN (Pt. 110) 85 at 102</b> in proof of the principle that any allegation of fact is deemed admitted unless denied. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Again, counsel contended relying on Section 139 of the Evidence Act 2011 that having proved the formula used in calculating the figures claimed by the Claimant, the burden of proving otherwise shifts to the Defendants to prove otherwise, which it has failed to do. Regarding the Claimant’s unpaid June 2011 salary, counsel submitted that the Claimant averred in Paragraph 32 of his Statement of Facts that his monthly basic salary is <s>N</s>204,978.05 and after deduction he takes <s>N</s>149,157.63; an averment not denied by the Defendant. However, in Exhibit D1, these figures were not indicated and the Defendants did not indicate how it arrived in their pleadings or evidence, at the sum of <s>N</s>54,497.96 and <s>N</s>102,183.73 as the Claimant’s monthly salary and salary in lieu respectively. In this regard, counsel contended that the fact of the non-payment of the Claimant’s unpaid June 2011 salary remains uncontradicted and deemed admitted. Counsel further contended that all other monetary reliefs claimed in this suit have not been contradicted by the Defendant. Again, counsel argued that the court is bound to accept the evidence of the Claimant as the true position because it is not the court’s position to speculate. Counsel submitted that the failure of the Defendant to produce the sheet stating the details of the Claimant’s benefits as stated in Exhibit CCA4, should be construed by the court as evidence which if produced will be unfavourable to the Defendant who withheld it; in line with Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011. Furthermore, counsel argued that the arguments of the Defendant’s counsel in paragraphs 4.05, 4.06, 4.09 and 4.21 in his final address are based on facts not pleaded, and as such cannot be utilized as a substitution for pleadings and evidence. The Defendant can neither amend his pleading by counsel’s address nor fill the gap in evidence with it. See <b>NIGERIAN ARAB BANK vs. FEMI KANE LTD (1995) 4 NWLR (Pt. 387) 100 at 106</b>, <b>ADONE vs. IKEBUDU (2001) All FWLR (Pt. 72) 1893 at 1909</b> and <b>ARCHIBONG vs. EDAK (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 323) 1631 at 1644</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Again, it is the submission of counsel that when issues that are not pleaded are raised in counsel’s final address, the court ought to discountenance it. Counsel urged the court to strike out the offending paragraphs as indicated above, and hold that the Claimant is entitled to judgment and grant all the reliefs in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the Defendant’s Reply on points of law filed on 28<sup>th</sup> June 2016, counsel submitted in response to issue one in the Claimant’s Final Address, a repetition of his earlier arguments in his original address. However, counsel added that employment issues are not issues of breach of constitutional rights. More so, counsel argued that even if there was no breach of the Defendant’s Handbook, the Defendant was entitled to terminate the Claimant’s services if they were no longer required. Counsel argued further that the Claimant did not substantiate his claim that he won his appeal against his termination by tendering any document. Counsel urged the court to resolve this issue in the Defendant’s favour. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In response to the Claimant’s issue two, it is counsel’s submission that the Claimant is estopped and cannot challenge the termination of his contract of employment or seek reinstatement where he accepts the payment of his terminal benefits. See the case of <b>JULIUS BERGER vs. NWAGWU (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 995) 518, 544 </b>and<b> AJOLORE vs. KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1986) 2 SC 374.</b><a name="_GoBack"></a><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">It is the further submission of counsel that the Exhibit D1 is unambiguous and unassailable to the effect that the Claimant is not being owed. Counsel urged the court to resolve the foregoing issues in favour of the Defendant and against the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in; margin-left:2.0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:.5in; line-height:normal"><b><u><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">COURT’s DECISION<o:p></o:p></span></u></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The facts of the Claimant’s case are that he was employed by the Defendant by a letter dated 7<sup>th</sup> August 1993 and his employment was later on confirmed on 7<sup>th</sup> March 1994. He had served the Defendant for 18 years until his employment was terminated on 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2011. All the rights, privileges including procedure for termination of employment and discipline of staff are guided by the Defendant’s handbook and the code of conduct and grievance procedure of the Defendant. In September 2010, the Claimant was served with a query dated 8/9/2010 by the Owerri Plant Logistics Manager, one Mr. Kenneth Osakwe. The Claimant submitted a reply to the query wherein he denied the allegations in the query. Although the incidence which led to the query happened in September 2009, he was issued the query one year after, contrary to the handbook and code of conduct and grievance procedure. The code of conduct and grievance procedure handbook is the only document which set out the offences and their penalties. By the handbook, the Claimant has not committed any offence to earn him dismissal or termination of his employment. Furthermore, the code of conduct guarantees fair hearing where query is issued and a disciplinary panel is set up to look into the matter. The Claimant went on to explain the disciplinary process of the Defendant as contained in the code of conduct and grievance procedure and he stated that in his case, the procedure was not followed in that the procedure was conducted maliciously and in breach of the code of conduct and grievance procedure. He itemized the particulars of malice thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">i. The sugar incidence happened in 2009 but the query was issued in 2010,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">ii. The issuance of query and hearing must be concluded with 2 weeks but in his case it lasted for 10 months,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">iii. He was not given fair hearing and there was none compliance with the code of conduct and grievance procedure,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">iv. His appeal was not heard before his employment was terminated,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">v. The panel ought to have withdrawn or dismissed the query since the person who issued the query was not present. But the panel went on with the hearing notwithstanding,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">vi. He was not given one month notice or payment in lieu,<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">vii. He was never found guilty yet he was dismissed from service.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant was arrested by the police and detained for 2 weeks before he bailed himself with the sum of <s>N</s>500,000.00. He was also charged to court but the charges were struck out for want of diligence prosecution. During his trial, he was still working with the Defendant. On receipt of termination letter, he lodged an appeal or protest letter in line with the Defendant’s code of conduct and grievance procedure but his appeal was never considered before his employment was terminated. The procedure in the Defendant is that staff who has appealed against a disciplinary action is entitled to remain in the employment while awaiting the outcome of the appeal. In his case, he was ordered to leave his duty post while his appeal was still pending. After he had instituted a suit against the defendant, the defendant released its decision on his appeal on 15/2/2012. His employment was wrongfully terminated as he was not in any way connected to the incidence of missing sugar.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">His monthly basic salary was <s>N</s>204,978.05 but he goes home with <s>N</s>149,157.63 after deductions. His total annual basic salary was <s>N</s>2,459,736.63. The Defendant owes him leave allowance for 11 years from 2001 to 2011. Leave allowance is 10% of monthly basic plus the basic salary itself. 10% of his basic monthly salary is <s>N</s>20,497.80 added to his monthly basic makes the sum of <s>N</s>225,475.85 as what he collects as his annual leave allowance every year. He has not been paid for 11 years which amounted to <s>N</s>2,480,234.35. On 30/9/2010, he applied for his annual leave but the application was pending when he received the termination letter. He has also not been paid his June 2011 salary which was the sum of <s>N</s>204,978.05. He worked for the Defendant up till 30<sup>th</sup> June 2011 and received the termination letter on 28<sup>th</sup> June 2011. He sent a mail to one Wale on 29 June 2011 to show that he was still in the Defendant’s employment till end of June 2011. His benefits and gratuity as senior staff of the Defendant having served for 18 years have not been paid to him. The formula used by the Defendant to calculate staff benefit/gratuity is annual basic salary multiplied by the number of years spent multiplied by 8 weeks then divide by 52 weeks. In his case, his benefits/gratuity amounts to <s>N</s>6,811,578.27. After the termination of his employment, the Defendant credited his account with the sum of <s>N</s>3,135,936.84 on 6/10/2011, but he didn’t understand what the money was meant to cover. By his calculation, the Defendant still owes him the sum of <s>N</s>3,675,641.43.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The defence of the Defendant is that the Claimant was its staff but whose employment was lawfully terminated in accordance with the condition of service. The Claimant was queried and he did know the subject matter of the query. The hearing process for the Claimant was conducted fairly as provided in the company’s guidelines. The Defendant did not harbour any malice against the Claimant and he was treated fairly in both the hearing and appeal. The Claimant was paid one month salary in lieu of notice before his employment was terminated as reflected in the list of his entitlements dated 6/9/2011. The Claimant left the Defendant’s service on 16/6/2011 by virtue of the termination letter. The Defendant does not owe the Claimant any unpaid leave allowances for 11 years or any other year and that the Claimant’s total entitlement is <s>N</s>3,135,936.64 which has been paid to him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">From the forging facts, the simple issue arising for determination is whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Before I proceed to consider the issue, I will quickly comment on a point. During the evidence of the Claimant, the Defendant’s counsel indicated objection to the admissibility of the documents marked on record as Exhibits CCA9, CCA10 and CCA12 and leave was granted to counsel to raise and argue the objection in the final address. The Defendant’s counsel however did not raise or argue any objection in his address regarding the admissibility of the documents. The result is that counsel has abandoned his intended objection to the admissibility of the exhibits. They remain properly so marked in evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">I will first consider reliefs 1, 2 and 3. What the Claimant sought in these reliefs are:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1. An Order that the Claimant is still a staff of the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:21.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -21.3pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2. A Declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s employment as per letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2011 with Ref. No. D-TERM.0109120/2011 is wrongful, irregular, invalid, null and void.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:21.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -21.3pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3. An Order reinstating the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">Reliefs 1 and 3 are quite conflicting and contradictory. I wonder how the same court will declare that the Claimant is still an employee of the Defendant and then proceed to make an order of reinstatement to the same employment. Reinstatement follows an unlawful removal but where it is declared that an employee is still in employment, it pre-supposes that he has never been removed. Thus, reinstatement cannot be ordered into employment that still subsists. Secondly, when the Claimant sought a declaration that termination is invalid, null and void and an order for reinstatement, he may have thought his employment has statutory flavour. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">This is because the reliefs of reinstatement or declaration that termination is null and void are available only to employment government by statute. In this case, the Claimant’s employment is that of purely master and servant.</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> Where the relationship is that of master and servant, infraction of the terms of employment in the dismissal of the servant or termination of the employment amounts merely to wrongful dismissal or termination, and cannot be declared null and void </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">nor can reinstatement or an order for specific performance be made</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">. See </span><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408;</span></b><b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. vs. NAPOLEON ESEALUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 411 at 437. </span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">T</span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">herefore, the reliefs for his reinstatement and a declaration that the termination of his employment is null and void are dead on arrival. The only allegation which consideration can be given in claims 1, 2 and 3 is whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant has sought that the termination of his employment vide the letter dated 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2011 be declared, among others, wrongful. The Claimant itemized several reasons why the termination of his employment was wrongful. His case is that he was not complicit in the sugar incidence but he was issued a query one year after, and he also went through a hearing. He contends that the termination of his employment was malicious; he was not given fair hearing and there were several instances of non-compliance with code of conduct and grievance procedure of the Defendant relating to the termination of his employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The root cause of the Claimant’s complaint in this case is the termination letter. The letter, dated 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2011, is in evidence as Exhibit CCA4. I will set out only the relevant portions:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:21.0pt"><b><i><u><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT <o:p></o:p></span></u></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:21.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This serves to inform you that the company will no longer require your services with effect from 16<sup>th</sup> June in accordance with part III section 16 of the Company’s Staff Handbook. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:21.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Consequently, your terminal benefits are as follows:- <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:39.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">a)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">BASIC SALARY/ALLOWANCE <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">These will be paid to you up to and including 16<sup>th</sup> June, 2011 plus one month basic salary in lieu of notice. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:39.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">b)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">GRATUITY <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This will be paid to you in accordance with the rules guiding the scheme.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:39.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">c)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">JUNIOR STAFF PROVIDENT SCHEME <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This will be paid to you in accordance with the rules guiding the scheme, if you are qualified <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:39.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">d)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> SENIOR STAFF PROVIDENT SCHEME <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">This will be paid to you in accordance with the rules guiding the scheme, if you are qualified <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:39.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.25in;mso-list:l2 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">e)<span style="font-style: normal; font-variant-numeric: normal; font-weight: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></i></b><!--[endif]--><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> PAYMENT IN LIEU OF ANNUAL LEAVE <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: 3.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Your outstanding leave (if any) as contained in our records will be paid to you accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -15.0pt"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">(f) A separate sheet stating the exact details of your terminal benefits will be given to you later.”<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By the above content of the termination letter, I do not see the need to go too far on the issue at hand. I think the contents of the letter have resolved the question whether or not the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful. Let me first emphasize that in master and servant relationship, as in this case, it is a general rule that both parties thereto have the right to terminate the contract whether for good, for bad or for no reason at all. Now, the Defendant in exercise of its right to terminate the contract simply conveyed to the Claimant that “<i>the company will no longer require your services</i>” pursuant to “<i>Part III Section 16 of the Company’s Staff Handbook</i>” and the Claimant was advised of his entitlements. The Defendant did not give any reason for the termination in the letter. The termination of the Claimant’s employment was not in anywhere stated to be linked to or connected with the sugar incidence or misconduct nor did it indicate that the Claimant’s employment was terminated because of a misconduct or disciplinary action. The Claimant’s employment was terminated simply for services no longer required. In such a case, the Claimant cannot read into his termination what is not contained therein by attributing his termination to a disciplinary action. It is trite that the court must confine the reason for termination of employment to the termination letter and cannot go out to look for reason for the termination. In <b>TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143</b> <b>at 167</b> it was held thus: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“It is however well established in our laws that the right to terminate a contract of employment can be exercised by both parties to the contract. When it is exercised, no reason need be given. It is not for a court to search for the reason for the termination of the contract”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Also, it was held PER AKA’AHS JCA in <b>IWUOHA vs. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLTD (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) 144 at 150-151</b> thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“Learned counsel submitted that the lower court was right when it held that in considering the issue whether the termination of the appointment of the appellant was right or wrong, the court must confine itself to the letter terminating the appointment and not go outside it to look for other reasons which the appellant thinks or suspects may have been behind the termination. This represents the correct position of the law. It is settled that where no other reason is stated for the termination of the appellant’s appointment, except that his services “were no longer required”, the court cannot go outside the said letter to discover the reasons for the termination”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">See also <b>CHUKWUMA vs. S.P.D.C (NIG) LTD (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512; CBN vs. AMIKA (2000) 13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 21</b>.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The case of the Claimant is that the termination of his employment was on disciplinary grounds, that was why he contended that he was not given fair hearing and that the grievance procedure in Exhibit CCA6 was not followed. But it is clear from the termination letter that no reason was stated for the termination. Therefore, the Claimant cannot use his own perception to infer that his termination resulted from the disciplinary process. In my view, it is only when the Defendant gives the reason for termination in letter to be on ground of misconduct or on disciplinary ground that the court can inquire into whether the disciplinary procedure in Exhibit CCA6 was observed or not before the punishment of termination was handed down. Consequently, the Claimant’s allegations about not being given fair hearing or the alleged non-compliances with the procedure in Exhibit CCA6 are all irrelevant considerations in the alleged wrongfulness of the termination of his employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Defendant did indicate in the termination letter that the Claimant’s employment was terminated <i>“in accordance with Part III Section 16 of the Company’s Staff Handbook”.</i> In my view, this provision of the staff handbook upon which the Defendant purports to rely to terminate the employment, has to be examined before a conclusion is drawn on whether or not the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful. The Claimant pleaded the handbook in paragraphs 6 and 10 of his amended statement of facts. He also listed it in his list of documents and even frontloaded it with the Complaint. The Defendant too pleaded the Defendant’s condition of service and the handbook in paragraph 4 of the statement of defence. Surprisingly however, it was not tendered in evidence. The handbook is one of the documents on record and from the case of the parties and the content of the termination letter, it is a relevant document. I can therefore rely on it in resolving this issue. See <b>NIGERGATE LIMITED vs. NIGER STATE GOVERNMENT (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 406) 1938</b> where it was held thus-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">"<span style="background:white;mso-bidi-font-weight: bold">A</span></span></i></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">court can rely</span></i></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; background: white;">on</span></i></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">any</span></i></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS"; background: white;">document</span></i></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></i></b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">of fact already before it or forming part of its records in the determination of any issue before it”</span></i></b></span><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Also in <b>OYEWOLE vs. AKANDE (2009) All FWLR (Pt. 491) 813 at 836,</b> the Supreme Court held that- <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.25in;text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“<b><i>A court is entitled to look at a document in its file while writing its judgment or ruling despite the fact that the document was not tendered and admitted as an Exhibit at the trial. This is an exercise of judicial discretion which must be exercised not only judicially but judiciously</i></b>.”<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Section 16 of Part III of the handbook, referred to in the termination letter provide: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">It is fully understood that the company or the employee may terminate the employment without assigning any reason whatsoever by giving the required notice of one month (or pay in lieu) or as may be required by his job grade.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;tab-stops:110.7pt"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">If at the company’s discretion the employee is not required to work out his notice, he will receive the appropriate amount of his pay in lieu of notice.<o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">By this provision of the handbook, both parties have the right under the contract to terminate the contract whether with reason or not, provided that one month notice is given or salary in lieu of the notice is paid. It is thus obvious that the Defendant utilized its right under this term of the contract to terminate the Claimant’s employment. The only question, which in my view, arises from the exercise of the Defendant’s right to terminate the contract is whether the Defendant terminated the employment in accordance with the terms of the handbook. That is if the Claimant was given one month notice or paid one month salary in lieu of notice. It is the law that where in the employment contract, a procedure is provided for termination of the contract, termination of the contract will be wrongful if there is non-compliance with that procedure. See <b>EZE vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1076; UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1389 at 1440-1441</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The letter of termination was dated 2<sup>nd</sup> June 2011 terminating the Claimant’s employment with effect from 16<sup>th</sup> June 2011. The notice was not up to one month’s notice. Clearly, one month notice was not given to the Claimant before his employment was terminated. In that circumstance, the Defendant was required by the contract to pay the Claimant one month salary in lieu of notice. It appears the Defendant chose the option of payment of one month salary in lieu of notice when it informed the Claimant under his entitlements in the termination letter that:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:39.0pt;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">“a) BASIC SALARY/ALLOWANCE <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify"><b><i><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">These will be paid to you up to and including 16<sup>th</sup> June, 2011 plus one month basic salary in lieu of notice”. <o:p></o:p></span></i></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Was this sum paid to the Claimant? The Claimant averred in Paragraph 29 (vi) of his amended statement of facts that he was not given one month notice nor paid</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> one month’s salary in lieu of notice and in Paragraph 44, he pleaded that after the termination of his employment, the Defendant credited his account with the sum of <s>N</s>3,135,936.84 on 6/10/2011 but he didn’t understand what the money was meant to cover. On the other hand, the Defendant averred that the Claimant was paid one month salary in lieu of notice before his employment was terminated as reflected in the list of his entitlements dated 6/9/2011. This document, admitted in evidence from DW1 as Exhibit D1, is titled <b><i><u>gratuity advice</u></i></b> for August 2011 in respect of the Claimant. It contains the list of the Claimant’s entitlement including the sum of <s>N</s>102,183.73 which is stated to be payment in lieu. The total sum reflected in the exhibit as paid to the Claimant is <s>N</s>3,134,210.53. Let me observe that the Claimant pleaded in paragraph 32 of his amended statement of facts that his monthly basic salary was <s>N</s>204,978.05 and his total annual basic salary was <s>N</s>2,459,736.63. But then, he tendered Exhibit CCA7 in evidence. The document is dated 20<sup>th</sup> May 2011 wherein the Claimant’s annual basic salary was increased to <s>N</s>1,226,204.71 with effect from 1<sup>st</sup> April 2011. The Claimant’s employment was terminated less than 3 weeks after Exhibit CCA7 was issued to him. The Claimant did not show any other document to back up his claim that his monthly basic and annual basic were <s>N</s>204,978.05 and <s>N</s>2,459,736.63 respectively. In view of Exhibit CCA7, the sum alleged by the Claimant to be his monthly and annual basic salaries cannot be believed. Rather, I find that his annual basic salary was <s>N</s>1,226,204.71. Going by this sum, the Claimant’s monthly basic salary, as at the time of termination of his employment, was the sum of <s>N</s>102,183.73. This is the exact sum paid to him by the Defendant as salary in lieu in Exhibit D1. The Claimant has admitted being paid the sum in Exhibit D1. That is to say the Claimant received the said amount of <s>N</s>102,183.73 as payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, the termination of the Claimant’s employment was done according to the handbook. There is nothing wrongful about the termination of the Claimant’s employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The Claimant, in relief 1, wants this court to hold that he is still in the employment. First of all, I have found in this case that the termination of the Claimant’s employment is not wrongful. That is to say his employment has been terminated validly. Therefore, there is no way his employment can still subsist. Secondly, the point must be emphasized that in master and servant relationship, once any of the parties have exercised his right under the contract to terminate the employment, whatever perceived defect exists in the manner of termination of the contract is irrelevant, the employment remains terminated. See <b>ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (supra) at 408; IKHALE</b> <b>vs. FAAN (2003) FWLR (Pt. 181) 1726 at 1742</b>; <b>JIRGBAGH</b> <b>vs. U.B.N PLC (2000) FWLR (Pt. 26) 1790 at 1807. </b>In the result, reliefs 1, 2 and 3 sought by the Claimant fail and they are hereby dismissed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">The only aspect left to be considered in this judgment is the Claimant’s monetary claims. He sought the following sums:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">1. The sum of <s>N</s>6,360,853.83 broken down as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:75.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">iv)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">3,675,641.43k, unpaid balance of gratuity/benefit. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:75.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">v)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family: "Comic Sans MS"">N</span></s><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2,480,480,234.35k unpaid leave allowance for 11 years.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:75.3pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS";mso-fareast-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">vi)<span style="font-variant-numeric: normal; font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: "Times New Roman";"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">N204,978.05k unpaid June 2011 salary.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="margin-left:.5in;text-align:justify;text-indent: -.5in"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">2. The sum of <s>N</s>100,000,000.00 as general damages for the wrongful termination of his employment. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">I will examine each of these claims.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In the termination letter, the Claimant was informed that his terminal entitlements include gratuity. DW1 told this court that the Claimant was paid all his terminal entitlements vide Exhibit D1. The exhibit indicated that the sum of <s>N</s>2,624,982.43 was paid to the Claimant as his total gratuity. The Claimant’s case is that the Defendant, having paid the sum of <s>N</s>3,135,936.84 to him, still owes him the sum of <s>N</s>3,675,641.43. According to the Claimant, using the formula of the Defendant to calculate his gratuity; which is annual basic salary x number of years spent x 8 weeks, divided by 52 weeks; his total gratuity was <s>N</s>6,811,578.27. His claim is for the balance of <s>N</s>3,675,641.43. The Defendant’s Exhibit D1 merely put the figure of gratuity paid to the Claimant at <s>N</s>2,624,982.43 without any explanation as to how it was arrived at. Save the averment of the Defendant that it has paid the Claimant’s entitlements; the Defendant didn’t deny the use of the formula in calculating gratuity. Facts not denied are deemed to have been admitted. See <b>OMOLE vs. COLODENSE PLC (supra)</b>. Since the Defendant recognized the fact the Claimant is entitled to gratuity in the termination letter, it is right for the court to recalculate the gratuity using the formula to know the actual sum due to the Claimant as gratuity. It should be recalled that the Claimant’s annual basic salary at termination was <s>N</s>1,226,204.71 as shown in Exhibit CCA7. Upon a recalculation, the Claimant’s total gratuity amounted to <s>N</s>3,395,643.81. It means that the sum already paid to the Claimant for gratuity was less than what was due to him. The balance of the gratuity to be paid to the Claimant is the sum of <s>N</s>770,661.38. I hereby award this sum to the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:120.9pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant alleged that he was being owed the total sum of <s>N</s>2,480,234.35 being his leave allowances for 11 years. It is his case that Leave allowance is 10% of monthly basic plus the basic salary itself. 10% of his basic monthly salary is <s>N</s>20,497.80 added to his monthly basic makes the sum of <s>N</s>225,475.85 as what he collects as his annual leave allowance every year. He has not been paid from 2001 to 2011 (11 years) which amounted to <s>N</s>2,480,234.35. On 30/9/2010, he applied for his annual leave but the application was pending when he received the termination letter. The Defendant denied the Claimant’s claim for leave allowances and contended that the claimant has been paid all the entitlements due to him. Upon a consideration of this claim, I must say that the sum claimed by the Claimant as accumulated leave allowance is untenable. He said that 10% of his basic monthly salary is <s>N</s>20,497.80 added to his monthly basic makes the sum of <s>N</s>225,475.85 as what he collects as his annual leave allowance every year. The sum of the monthly salary used by the Claimant in his calculation, as I found, is even above the amount of his monthly basic salary as at the time of termination of his employment. More so, the sum claimed by the Claimant to be his monthly basic salary cannot be his salary since 2001 up to 2011. The Claimant did not tell this court what was his basic salary in each of the 11 years to enable us know what the leave allowance for each year should be. He only used his salary for May 2011 as the basis for calculating what he claims as outstanding leave allowances from 2001 to 2011. The foundation of the Claimant’s calculation of his leave allowance is faulty. This court cannot, in the circumstance put any weight on it, neither can it conduct independent assessment of the claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:120.9pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:120.9pt"><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">However, the Defendant said the Claimant’s outstanding entitlements have been paid to him as reflected in Exhibit D1. The document shows that the sum of <s>N</s>58,857.83, representing prorated annual leave allowance, was included in the sum of <s>N</s>3,134,210.53 paid to the Claimant and acknowledged by him. The Claimant who alleged that he was owed leave allowance for 11 years has the onus to convince this court on his claim. In view of the inadequate facts and proof supplied by the Claimant on this claim, this court finds it difficult to disagree with the amount paid by the Defendant to the Claimant as leave allowance. In the result, the claim for leave allowance fails.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify;tab-stops:120.9pt"><span style="font-size:4.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">The Claimant claims payment of the sum of <s>N</s>204,978.05k which he alleged was the salary for June 2011 not paid to him. It is his case that he was not paid his June 2011 salary even though he worked for the Defendant up till 30<sup>th</sup> June 2011. The Claimant relied on Exhibit CCA12, an email he claims he sent to one Wale Timothy on 29 June 2011, to show that he was still in the Defendant’s employment till the end of June 2011. But the Defendant has contended that the Claimant left the Defendant’s employment on 16<sup>th</sup> June 2011. First of all, the sum of <s>N</s>204,978.05k sought as salary for June 2011 is not the amount of the Claimant’s monthly salary. Secondly, I have examined Exhibit CCA12 but I find that it does not show any connection to the Defendant. It is the Claimant’s personal email to the said Wale Timothy. As such, the email cannot be used to resolve the issue whether or not the Claimant was still in the Defendant’s employment as at the date of the email. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">In any case, by the terms of the letter of termination, the Claimant’s employment was terminated effective 16<sup>th</sup> June 2011. From that day, he ceased to be an employee of the Defendant. It presupposed that the Claimant worked in the month of June 2011 up to the 16<sup>th</sup>. He ought to be paid for that period. Exhibit D1, which contains the terminal entitlements paid to the Claimant indicate that the Claimant’s exit date was 16/6/2011 and a basic pay in the sum of <s>N</s>54,497.96 was paid to him. Upon calculation done on the Claimant’s monthly salary, it is observed that the sum is 16 days’ pay out of the Claimant’s monthly basic salary. Accordingly, I find that the Claimant has been paid for the 16 days he worked in June 2011. His claim for the sum of <s>N</s>204,978.05k being unpaid salary for June 2011 does not have merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:4.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS""> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">As for the </span><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">sum of <s>N</s>100,000,000.00 sought by the Claimant as general damages for the wrongful termination of his employment, since it is my finding in this judgment that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was not wrongful, the claim for damages for wrongful termination does not have merit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">In concluding this judgment, I find only that the Claimant is entitled to be paid the sum of </span><b><s><span style="font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">N</span></s></b><b><span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Comic Sans MS"">770,661.38 (Seven Hundred and Seventy Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty One Naira, Thirty Eight Kobo) only</span></b><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">, being balance of his gratuity. The said sum is hereby awarded to the Claimant. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum hereby awarded to the Claimant to him within 30 days from today, failing which it will attract 10% interest per annum until it is fully paid. All other reliefs sought by the Claimant are hereby denied. No order as to cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 4pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";"> </span></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><b><span style="font-size: 13pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="NoSpacing1" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size: 12pt; font-family: "Comic Sans MS";">Judge<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><br></p>