Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">REPRESENTATION</span></u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;line-height: normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">D.O. Efuwape for 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 style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Victoria Enodiana for the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height: normal"><u><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">1. Introduction<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant’s claim against the Defendants as endorsed on the Complaint and Statement of Fact in support of the claim filed on 17/12/14 are as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. A declaration that the Claimant was dismissed from employment wrongfully.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. A declaration that the wrongful dismissal constitutes a breach of contract of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. A declaration that the Claimant contract of employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant is still subsisting.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. A declaration that the Claimant is entitle to his monthly salary starting from the month of June 2014 till the date of his contract of employment will be rightfully terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. A declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant frivolously set the law in motion against the claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. The sum of =N=52,712.72 monthly salaries starting from the month of June 2014 till the date the contract of employment of the Claimant will be rightly terminated as special damages.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. The sum of =N=5,000,000.00 for general damages and breach of contract. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">8. The sum of =N=3,000,000.00 for general damages and breach of contract.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">9. The sum of =N=100,000.00 being special damages and the sum of =N=600,000.00 being general damages for the medical treatment of the Claimant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">10. The sum of =N=50,000,000.00 general damages for the defamation of the Claimant’s character.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">11. The sum of =N=20,000,000.00 general damages for setting the law in motion against the Claimant frivolously. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant's <i>Form 1 </i>was accompanied by the statement of facts an all other requisite processes. The Defendant entered appearance on 19/3/15 and filed their defence processes together with all the frontloaded processes. The Defendants also filed their Statement of Defence dated and filed on 19<sup>th</sup> March, 2015. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">2. Brief Facts<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The brief facts of this case as revealed by the pleadings filed are that the Claimant was on employee of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant as the Site Administrative Clerk at the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s construction site at Shagamu, Ogun State until the Claimant was dismissed by the 1st defendant on 18/6/14; the Claimant was investigated in May, 2014 for discrepancy in preparation of casual worker’s pay roll as the Site Administrative Officer of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant wherein he was found culpable for negligence and dishonesty; the Claimant was queried, summoned and appeared before a Disciplinary Panel for grievance/disciplinary hearing on 20/5/14 to answer to the allegations against him; the Claimant was recommended for dismissal and subsequently dismissed on 18/6/14; the Claimant was later involved in another incident involving of stolen granite at the site on 17/6/14 and the incident was reported to the Police and the Claimant along with other staff of the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant were arrested by the Police and investigated.; that as at became obvious to the Police that the Claimant knew nothing concerning the allegation levied against coupled with his ill health, the Claimant was released on bail from the Police custody on the 18/6/14 at about 7.00p.m; that the Claimant collapsed and fainted as he was released from the Police custody and was rushed to the hospital where he was attended to.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">3. Case of the Claimant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The hearing of this case commenced on 21/9/15 when the Claimant opened his case and testified as <i>CW1</i>. <i>CW1 </i>adopted his witness written statements on oath dated 17/12/14 and 7/5/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 15 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as <i>Exh. C1-Exh. C15. </i>Under cross examination, the CW1 testified that 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant determined his job functions and schedule when he joined it; that he attended the Seminar held on 15/6/14; that it was the only one he attended; that he appeared the Disciplinary Panel on 20/5/14; that it was the 1<sup>st</sup> of such he attended; that the Panel told him to go back to his duty post; that Defendant provided me with one room apartment; that he is not aware of any rules governing such accommodation; that 2<sup>nd</sup> Defendant was in the premises when he was making statement at Police Station in Sagamu; that he used job card every time while with 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant; that 2<sup>nd</sup> and 5<sup>th</sup> Defendants have never been to his apartment before; that he filled HMO forms in 2013 while with the Defendant and that he did not indicate on the forms that he had Ulcer.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">One Temitope Efuwape, Female testified as <i>CW2</i> and simply adopted her witness written deposition dated 17/2/14 as her evidence in chief. Under cross examination, CW2 stated that he deals in buying and selling in general; that Claimant called and told him he was arrested by the Police; that he is not aware of the terms of his bail; that he did not stand surety for his bail and that he was at the Claimant’s house the day Police went there.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The witness called as <i>CW3 </i>was on Tunde Sotunde. <i>CW3 </i>also simply adopted his witness deposition dated 17/12/14 as his evidence in chief. Under cross examination, CW3 stated that he does not live with the Claimant; that three people live with the Claimant in his house; that he understands everything in his oath; that he was at the Police Station Sagamu on 17/6/14; that he did not write a statement at the Police Station; that he stood surety for the Claimant at the Police Station; that everything he deposed to about Claimant’s place of work was what the Claimant told him; that Police searched the Claimant’s house; that the Police were looking for granite in his house; that the Police said Claimant stole granite and that he operates a barbing salon and holds hold Secondary School Certificate.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">4. Case of the Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Defendants opened their case on 21/9/15 calling one Tunde Nuga as their <i>DW1. </i>Witness adopted his witness deposition dated 27/8/15 as his evidence in chief without tendering any exhibits. Under cross examination, <i>DW1 </i>testified that his duty as Chief Security Officer involves safeguarding the property of the Defendant; that he is aware that the Claimant was employed as an Administrative Officer by the Defendant; that he reported the matter to the Police and the Police arrested the Claimant and the Storekeeper and that the Police investigated how the granite got missing. Witness added that he asked the Claimant what he knew about the missing granite and that he said he did not know anything about it; that he also inquired from the Storekeeper Mr. Oladejo and the Quantity Surveyor; that he does not know if the Storekeeper is still in the employment of the 1st Defendant; that he cannot remember the name of the Quantity Surveyor; that the Quantity Surveyor was also arrested and investigated and made a statement at the Police Station; that his house was not searched by the Police and that he is aware that Claimant's house was searched by the Police.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Mrs Toyin Lasaki testified as <i>DW2. </i>After adopting her witness depostion dated 27/8/15 as her evidence in chief, tendered 21 documents for admission as exhibits. The documents were so admitted and marked as <i>Exh. TL1-Exh. TL21. </i>Under cross examination, <i>DW2 </i>testified that the duty of the Claimant is to check the materials both inflow and outflow; that Claimant was invited for Disciplinary Hearing on 0/5/14; that the Storekeeper was not invited; that the Storekeeper was dismissed as a result of the events that happened in June; that both Claimant and Storekeeper were handed letters of dismissal same day but for two different cases; that it was left for the Police to decide whether the Claimant was innocent of the event that took place in June; that on 17/6/14 both Claimant and Storekeeper were arrested by the Police on allegation of missing granite; that she called Claimant on phone few days after; that she did not go to the Police respecting the incident; that she does not know where Claimant was at the time <i>Iveco Truck</i> was intercepted; that the C.S.O. handled the case; that she was not there when the <i>Iveco truck</i> was intercepted; that provision of health insurance was made by 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant in 2012 and still exists till date; that the HMO provides a lot of Hospitals for the Defendant out of which staff are to choose; that both the <i>CSO </i>and the Police handled the case against the Claimant and Police gave 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant a Report – <i>Exhibit TL8; </i>that the Claimant was summoned because of May 2014 recommendations were made to MD from HR Department; that after the event of 20/5/14 money was still being sent to the Claimant’s account to pay to staff; that this is because decision had not been taken on him then; that <i>Disciplinary Committee</i> was constituted by 5 members – Oluwatoyin Lasaki, Charles Nkwocha, Oluwabukunola Kalejaiye, Kazeem Owodunni, Joseph Iji and that Kalejaiye Oluwabukunola has left the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Oladimeji Rabiu gave testimony as <i>DW3 </i>and adopted his written deposition dated 27/8/15 as his evidence in chief. While being cross examined, the witness stated that it is part of his duty as Site Engineer to sign the materials sheet; that he has seen a copy of material sheet; that on the instruction of the <i>CSO</i> Claimant and Storekeeper were arrested on 18/6/14; that the Police went to search the premises of the Claimant for incrementing document in respect of the event that took place in June and that the search was at the instance of the Police and not 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">DW4 </span></i><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Akinlabi Tunde simply adopted his witness statement of 27/8/15 and was cross examined. Under cross examination the witness stated that on 18/6/14 he went with the Police to search Claimant’s house for the 150 ton missing granite; that he went with them not because Police were not competent to do their work; that Claimant was taken back to Police Station when the granite was not found; that he saw members of Claimant’s family when we got to his house; that the Storekeeper was not dismissed with Claimant in respect of the missing granite; that before going to search his house he did not know that Claimant and Storekeeper stole the missing granite; that he did not accompany the Police to search the Storekeeper’s house; that only house of the Claimant was searched; that he does not know if the Claimant is innocent of the allegation of missing granite and that he does not know how many people live in the Claimant’s house though he saw people there. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">At the close of trial of this case, learned Counsel on either side pursuant to a direction of the Court filed their final written addresses in accordance with the Rules of Court.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">5. Submission on Behalf of the Defendants<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The final written address of the Defendants was dated and filed 4/4/16. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether the Claimant’s employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant was properly terminated by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s letter dated 18<sup>th</sup> June, 2012. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this suit on the pleadings and preponderance of evidence led by the parties in this suit.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that termination of employment connotes the bringing to an end of the contract of employment relationship between an employer and an employee; that the basis of the 1st Defendant's action in terminating the Claimant's employment was the irregularities discovered by the 1st Defendant upon investigation into the conduct of the Claimant as Site Administrative Officer specifically, negligence in preparation of casual workers' work schedule and dishonesty in payment of casual workers' salaries; that the Claimant appeared before a disciplinary panel/grievance hearing and was afforded opportunity to defend himself; that the Claimant had no defence to the allegations of negligence and dishonesty against him; that the Panel recommended the dismissal of the Claimant and he was subsequently dismissed. Counsel referred to the exhibits tendered and submitted that the exhibits speak for themselves. Counsel added that the conduct of the Claimant amounts to misconduct referring to <i>National Bank of Nigeria Limited v. Omotayo (2002) FWLR (Pt. 114) 465. </i>Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the employment of the Claimant was lawfully terminated by the letter of dismissal dated 18/6/14.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the onus is on the Claimant to prove his case by preponderance of evidence citing <i>SS. 132 & 133, Evidence Act, 2011 & Afolabi v. W.S.W. Limited (2012)17 NWLR (Pt. 1329) 286 at 308. </i>Counsel further submitted that to be successful, the Claimant must place before the Court the terms of his contract of employment as well as prove in what manner the said terms were breached by his employer citing <i>Okunu Oil Palm Co. Limited v. Iserhienrhein (2001) NWLR (Pt. 710) 660 at 673. </i>Learned Counsel argued that nothing in all the 13 exhibits tendered by the Claimant discharged the burden placed on the Claimant; that <i>Exh. C10 </i>is undeniable proof that the Claimant has consistently failed to sign the site material sheet as required of him as part of his job function. Counsel added that the Claimant did not lead any cogent evidence in proof of the alleged head of damages citing <i>Ibeanu v. Ogbeide (1998)12 NWLR (Pt. 576) 1. </i>Respecting the claim in defamation, learned Counsel submitted that the law is trite that in order to succeed in an action for defamation, the plaintiff must prove that the words complained of were published and that he has been discredited by the imputation of the alleged defamatory statement without legal justification, citing <i>Vanguard Media Limited v. Olafisoye (2011)14 NWLR (Pt. 1267) 207 at 232 & Olage v. New Africa Holdings Limited (2013)17 NWLR (Pt. 1384) 449 at 469. </i>Counsel submitted that the testimony of the Claimant and his witnesses in this regards were rendered unreliable during cross examination. Finally learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that on the pleadings and preponderance of evidence led by the parties, the Claimant has failed to prove any of his claims before the Court. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Submissions on Behalf of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="margin-left:0in;mso-add-space:auto; text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed 20/5/16. In it learned Counsel raised the following issues for determination -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether from the totality of the evidence placed before the court and entire circumstances of the herein matter the Claimant was dismissed from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant’s employment based on the event that took place in May, 2014. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the dismissal of the Claimant from the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant employment was in accordance with his award of contract of employment dated 25<sup>th</sup> June, 2012 (Exh. C 12). <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. Whether the Defendants frivolously set the law in motion against the Claimant in respect of the event that took place in June, 2014 upon which the Claimant and the Store Keeper were dismissed from employment by the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. Whether from the entire circumstances of the herein matter the Police acted on behalf of the Defendants. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. Whether the acts of the Defendants against the Claimant constitute defamation of his character.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. Whether from the circumstances of the herein matter, the Claimant is entitled to the claims for damages flowing from the act of the Defendants.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the sole reason why the Claimant was dismissed from the employment of the 1st Defendant was based on the wrongful allegation of theft of 150 tons of granite levied against the Claimant and the Storekeeper. According to Counsel this was buttressed by the evidence of DW2 under cross examination where she stated that the Storekeeper was dismissed from the 1st Defendant as a result of the event that happened in June 2014 and that <i>Exh. C7 </i>handed to the Claimant has the same content as the letter of dismissal given to the Storekeeper. Counsel also referred to paragraphs 54 & 55 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 56 and 57 of the Claimant written statement on oath. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that by <i>Exh. C12, </i>Claimant was entitled to a month notice or salary in lieu of notice in event of services being terminated but that in the instant case the Claimant was not so given notice or paid in lieu of same. Counsel submitted further that under <i>Exh. C12, </i>the Claimant could only be dismissed from employment of the 1st Defendant 1. On the occurrence of any material breach of this contract; 2. Breach of confidentiality undertakings; 3. Fraud; 4. Bankruptcy and 5. Guilty of gross misconduct. However, Counsel submitted that Claimant was dismissed by <i>Exh. C7 </i>for '' Negligence and Dishonesty concerning work done'', that ''Negligence and Dishonesty concerning work done'' are not among the grounds stated in <i>Exh. C10 </i>- contract between the parties. Counsel submitted that where words contained in a document are clear and unambiguous they must be given their ordinary and natural meaning and it is not the duty of Court to resort to any external aid citing <i>Ojukwu v. Obasanjo (2004) FWLR (Pt. 222) 1666 & Ndoma Egbe v. Chkwuogor (2004) FWLR (Pt. 217) 735. </i>Learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant was not dismissed for reasons as contained in the contract entered into with the 1st Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">With respect to issue 3, submitted that <i>Exh. TL8 </i>was just a summary of the report made by <i>DW1 </i>to the Police; that it is not in any way connected directly or indirectly to the Claimant; that a Mr. Idowu Morufu by <i>Exh. TL7 </i>made an undertaking to supply the total of 150 tons of granite to 1st Defendant based on request and that the Claimant knew nothing about the allegation frivolously leveled against him by the 1st Defendant and hence his name was not mentioned in <i>Exh. TL7 & Exh. TL8. </i>Counsel urged the Court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Arguing issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that the Police acted on behalf and on the instruction of the 2nd Defendant to maltreat and oppress the Claimant. Counsel referred to several paragraphs of the Claimant's statement on oath as well as his additional written statement on oath and stated that the 3rd and 4th Defendants admitted before the Court that they accompanied the Police to search the house of the Claimant in order to recover incriminating materials against him. Learned Counsel submitted and prayed the Court to hold that the Defendants acted through the Police in maltreating the Claimant. Citing <i>UBN Limited v. Edet (1993)4 (Pt. 287) 288</i> Counsel submitted that it is settled that he who acts through another acts for himself. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Issue 5 is whether the acts of the Defendants against the Claimant constitute defamation of his character. Counsel submitted that a defamatory statement is a statement which if published of and concerning a person, is calculated to lower him in the estimation of right thinking men or cause him to be shunned or avoided or expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to convey an imputation on him disparaging or injurious to him in his office, profession, calling, trade of business, citing <i>Sketch Ajagbemokeferi (1989)1 NWLR (Pt. 100) 678 & Ciroma v. Ali (1999)2 NWLR (Pt. 590) 317. </i>Counsel submitted that the Defendants used the Police as a medium of publication of the offending word - thief- used against the Claimant to the members of the community when the Claimant was paraded at his residence like a notorious criminal. Counsel added that the false information about the Claimant as contained in <i>Exh. C7 </i>was communicated by the 1st Defendant to his prospective employers, <i>EM Consulting International Company </i>and others who actually believed and acted on same, avoided, jeered, ridiculed and treated the Claimant with contempt in the community and no organisation is willing to work with him till date. Counsel prayed the Court to resolve this issue in favor of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On whether from the circumstances of this case, the Claimant entitled to the claims for damages flowing from the act of the Defendants Counsel submitted that from the pleadings of the Claimant and <i>Exh. C8 & Exh. C9, </i>there is evidence that the Claimant was hospitalised being an ulcer patient as a result of his detention and denial of access to food and water within the period of his detention and that the sum of =N=100,000.00 claimed as special damages is for his medical expenses.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Respecting general damage, counsel submitted that it is also compensatory damages for harm presumed to flow from the type of wrong complained of ; that it does not need to be specifically claimed citing <i>Ighereiniavo v. Sec. Nig. Limited & 2Ors. (2013)4-5 S.C (Pt. 11)31 @ 50-51 & Ediagbonya v. Dumex Nig. Limited (1986)3 NWLR (Pt. 31) 753. </i>According to learned Counsel, the total general damages claimed by the Claimant is the sum of =N=78,000,000.00 for financial loss for injury as the Claimant still unemployed till date as well as for personal injury involving not only pain and suffering but also pleasure of life. Counsel urged the Court to award damages as sought by the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">On 14/6/16, the learned Counsel to the Defendants filed a reply address. In it learned Counsel reset out all the 6 issues set down for determination by the Claimant and proceeded to proffer argument against each of them. Without investing useful and time energy on this ''Reply Address'' it is sufficient for me to point out that it is doubtful if the contents of that process are within the contemplation of a reply address in the true sense of the words. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><b><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">7. Decision<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side in this case. I also heard their oral argument attentively. I reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case down to the following -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. Whether the appointment of the Claimant was properly terminated by the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Dismissal from an employment is a form of termination of employment. In order therefore to determine whether or not the Claimant is entitled to any relief at all, it is imperative to first determine whether or not his dismissal from the services of the 1st Defendant was proper. For, that indeed will form the foundation upon which any legitimate claim may be founded. The state of the law remains trite that the burden of proof is always on he who asserts. See <i>Chairman, EFCC & Anor. v. Littlechild & Anor. (2015) LPELR-25199 (CA).</i> The proof must be by credible and admissible evidence before the Court can make a grant of the relief sought. See <i>Ogbonna & Anor. v. Jumbo & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24378 (CA).</i> In a master/servant relationship, it is for a servant seeking a declaration as in the instant case to place before the Court his contract of service bringing to the fore how and in what manner his employment was wrongfully, unlawfully or maliciously terminated. <i>Exh. C12 </i>is the <i>Award of Contract </i>of employment to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant dated 25/6/12.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">By that document, the Claimant was employed as <i>Site Administrative Officer. </i>Part of the terms and conditions as stated under <i>Termination </i>is that <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''Either you or The Company may terminate this Contract by giving to the other at least one month notice in writing or by payment to the other one month basic salary in lieu of notice. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> The company shall also have the right to terminate this Contract without prior notice and to dismiss you without any liability for compensation or damages on the occurrence of any material breach of a provision of this contract, including confidentiality undertakings, fraud, bankruptcy or guilty of gross misconduct.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> Following the termination of your employment you will be required to return all company property''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">It is apparent from this exhibit that the grounds upon which either party is to act in event of desire to bring the master/servant relationship to an end is properly stated. The law is trite and has indeed become elementary now that parties who voluntarily enter into a written agreement are bound by and must act within the contents of same. See <i>Al-Bishak v. National Productivity Centre & Anor. (2015) LPELR-24659 (CA). </i>In much the same vein, the duty of the Court in adjudication where documents are involved is simply to interpret and accord meaning to the contents of the documents giving meaning to the intention of the parties.<i> </i>The Court will not and cannot make contract for the parties or reframe their contractual intentions. A court of law must always respect the sanctity of the agreements reached by parties as it favours the inalienable rights of the freedom of formation of contracts by parties and would not make a contract for them or re-write the one they have already made for themselves. See: <i>Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd. v. Union Bank of Nig. Ltd. (2003) 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 545. </i>Again, the law is trite that an employer continues to retain the power and right to discipline its employee which discipline may include warning, suspension, termination of employment or outright dismissal. See <i>Mr. Lawrence Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano & Anor. (2009) LPELR-8721(CA).</i> An employer is not obliged to give reason or explain the rationale for terminating the employment of its employee. See <i>Shaidu Nda Maliki v. Michael Imodu Institute for Labour Studies (2008) LPELR-8467(CA).</i> However, where it does give reason for so doing, the law requires the employer to prove the reason as stated for disengaging the services of its staff. See <i>Festus Opeoluwa Daodu v. United Bank for Africa Plc (2003) LPELR-5634(CA). <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Did the 1st Defendant act within the ambit of <i>Exh. C12 </i>dismissing the Claimant? <i>Exh. C7 </i>is the letter of dismissal from employment issued to the Claimant. It was dated 18/6/14 and signed by one <i>Toyin Lasaki </i>as <i>Head, Human Resources and Administration. </i>The first paragraph of the exhibit is instructive. It states as follows -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> ''This is to convey Management decision to dismiss you from the Company's employment with immediate effect for Negligence and Dishonesty concerning work done''.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">I have made three critical points earlier on that parties are bound to act within the ambit of their contractual agreement; that an employer is not bound to give reason in terminating an employee's services and that where reasons are given it is incumbent upon the employer to prove same. The last point is indeed much more imperative in the case where it is not just termination of employment but dismissal. The rationale being that dismissal as a form of discipline is akin to death penalty in criminal trials and carries with it far reaching consequences than mere termination of employment. The reason for the dismissal of the Claimant is for <i>Negligence and Dishonesty concerning work done</i> as stated in <i>Exh. C7. </i>In reviewing the facts and circumstances of this case, I find that the reason stated for the dismissal of the Claimant is not within the contents of <i>Exh. C12 </i>which is the binding agreement between the parties and I so hold. However, even if it is agreed that the reason for the dismissal of the Claimant as stated by the 1st Defendant falls within the meaning of <i>fraud </i>and <i>guilty of gross misconduct </i>as contained in <i>Exh. C12, </i>the burden remains on the 1st Defendant to prove <i>Negligence and Dishonesty concerning work done </i>on the part of the Claimant. Now what are the evidence led in proof of this allegation against the Claimant? I find evidence of 2 Queries issued to the Claimant - <i>Exh. TL2 & Exh. TL13 </i>dated 30/10/12 & 15/5/13 respectively. Neither of them contained allegation bordering on negligence or dishonesty. I also found evidence of <i>Final Warning </i>issued to the Claimant in <i>Exh. TL10. </i>I note that the final warning was not as a result of act of <i>negligence and dishonesty concerning work done </i>as stated in the letter of dismissal but rather -<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> '' ... serves as a final warning concerning such a disrespectful act, as a reoccurrence of such an act will result in termination of your employment. However, note that one day payment will be deducted from your June salary''. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The bottom line of this analysis is that the dismissal of the Claimant by the 1st Defendant was not in accordance with the contract of employment voluntarily entered into by the parties. Therefore, I declare that the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant was wrongful. Secondly, I also declare that the wrongful dismissal constitutes a breach of contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. Thirdly and having so declared, I further declare and convert the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant to termination of employment and for which the Claimant is entitled to all necessary benefits attaching.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant also sought a declaration that his contract of employment with the 1<sup>st</sup> defendant is still subsisting. To grant this relief will amount to taking away the right and power of an employer or a master to discipline an employee. Besides, it will also amount to foisting a willing employee on an unwilling employer. This is certainly outside and beyond the power of the Court to do. See <i>Adewunmi v. Nigerian Eagle Flour Mills (2014) LPELR-22557 (CA).</i> I therefore refuse to declare that the employment of the Claimant is still subsisting. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant seeks a declaration that the he is entitled to his monthly salary starting from the month of June 2014 till the date of his contract of employment will be rightfully terminated. I have held before now that the dismissal of the Claimant was wrongful. The dismissal having been held wrongful, same is here converted to termination of employment without notice. The 1st Defendant is therefore ordered to pay to the Claimant his salary for the month of June 2014. By <i>Exh. C12, </i>the Claimant was entitled to one month basic salary in lieu of notice. By <i>Exh. C7, </i>the employment of the Claimant was terminated with immediate effect. In other words, Claimant was neither given a month notice nor paid a month basic salary in lieu. The 1st Defendant is therefore ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant one month basic salary in lieu of termination of his employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant claimed the sum of =N=100,000.00 being special damages for his medical treatment. Special damages are such as the law will infer from the nature of the act complained of and do not follow in the ordinary course of things. They are exceptional in character denoting those pecuniary loses which have been crystalised in terms of monetary value before trial. See <i>Ijebu-Ode Local Govt. v. Adedeji Balogun & Co. (1991) 1 NWLR (Part 166) 136 at 158; Imana v. Robinson (1979) 3-4 S.C. 1; Calabar East Co-Operative Thrift and Credit Society Limited & Ors. v. Etim Emmanuel Ikot (1993) 3 NWLR (Part 311) 324 at 334</i>. Special damages<span class="apple-style-span"><span style="color:#000099"> </span></span>must be specifically pleaded and particularized and must also be strictly proved in order for a plaintiff to be entitled to it. The obligation to particularize a claim for special damages is said to arise not because of the unusual nature of the loss, but because a Plaintiff/Claimant who is in an advantageous position to predicate his claim on precise calculation must give the Defendant access to the facts which make such calculation possible. See <i>F.B.N. v. Associated Motors Co. Ltd. (1998) 10 NWLR (570) 441 at 466 paras. A-B; British Airways V. Atoyebi (Supra) at 287 paras. A-B; N.N.P.C. v. Klifco (Nig.) Ltd. (2011) 10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 209 at 238 paras. A-D, 243 paras. B-C; Incar (Nig.) Ltd. v. Benson Trans. Ltd. (1975) 3 S.C. 117; Odulaja v. Haddad (1973) 11 S.C. 357, Oshinjirin v. Elias (1970) 1 ALL NLR 153, Imana v. Robinson (1979) 3-4 S.C. 1 and Odinaka v. Moghalu (1992) 4 NWLR (Pt. 233) 1. </i>The particulars of this head of claim are contained in paragraph 50 of the statement of facts and paragraph 52 of the statement on oath of the claimant deposed to on 17/12/14. These averments were further supported by <i>Exh. C1 </i>being receipt from <i>Idera Hospital and Maternity. </i>On the basis of the applicable law, facts and evidence led, I find sufficient cogent evidence to find in favor of the Claimant respecting this head of claim. I therefore order and direct the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira only to the Claimant as special damages being the cost of medical treatment of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant also sought a declaration that the 1<sup>st</sup> Defendant frivolously set the law in motion against the claimant. From the evidence led, the facts show that the 2nd Defendant lodged a complaint with the Police respecting some property of the 1st Defendant allegedly stolen. There is no evidence before to the effect that the 2nd Defendant or any other Defendant for that matter had or has control over the Police. It is the civic responsibility of every citizenry to report to the Nigerian Police any act bordering on crime. Once that civic responsibility is discharged it is up to the Police to take steps as appropriate such as deciding whether or not to investigate as well as the mode and method the investigation will take. I refuse the declaration sought that the 1st Defendant frivolously set the law in motion against him. I also refuse to grant the sum of =N=20,000,000.00 sought as general damages against the Defendants for setting the law in motion against him frivolously.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, the Claimant sought general damages for various heads of claims. He sought the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 for general damages and breach of contract; the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 for general damages and breach of contract; the sum of =N=600,000.00 being general damages for the medical treatment of the Claimant; the sum of =N=50,000,000.00 general damages for the defamation of the Claimant’s character. The first 2 heads of claim for general damages are for breach of contract. The contract allegedly breached here is contract of employment. The law remains trite that the measure of damages for breach of wrongful termination of employment is the amount the Claimant would have earned if the contract had been properly terminated. In <i>Benin Electricity Distribution Company Plc v. Esealuka (2013) LPELR-20159 (CA), </i>the Court pointed out that ''the principle of assessment of damages for breach of contract generally is <i>restituo in integrum</i> - that is the Plaintiff shall be restored as far as money can do it into the correct position he would have been had the breach not occurred. The Plaintiff is not entitled to claim all manner of damages. Oguntade JSC in that case <i>(Ifeta v. SPDC Nig. Ltd.)</i> pronounced emphatically that the measure of damages where a master brings the contract of employment to an end without the requisite notice stipulated in the parties' contract is the salary the employee would have earned had the employment been properly determined. <i>Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) NSCC 662 at 665 </i>was relied upon for this position." This Court has held that the Claimant was not given notice as required and also not paid a month basic salary as stipulated in the contract of employment entered by the parties. This Court has also ordered and directed the 1st Defendant to pay to the Claimant one month basic salary in lieu of notice. Secondly, this Court has awarded =N=100,000.00 only as special damages to the Claimant for his medical treatment. That being the case, the position of the law does not support the awarding of general damages to the Claimant when he has been given all that he is entitled to. Therefore I refuse and dismiss all the claim for general damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract. Secondly, I also refuse and dismiss the claim for general damages against the 1st Defendant for medical treatment special damages having been awarded respecting the same head of claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">The Claimant also claimed the sum of =N=50,000,000.00 general damages for the defamation of the Claimant’s character. The law relating to Defamation is well settled. Defamation is any imputation which may tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of the society generally and expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule is defamatory of him. An imputation may be defamatory whether or not it is believed by those to whom it is published. In the case of libel and slander actionable <i>per se</i> the publication of the matter containing defamatory imputation is actionable without proof of damage. The law will presume that damage flows from such publication. See <i>Gatley on Libel & Slander 7th edition Page 6. <o:p></o:p></i></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><i><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif""> </span></i></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">In <i>Okon v. Obo (2013) LPELR-20447 (CA) </i>the Court of Appeal stated that Defamation lies in the publication of the defamatory words; that it is concerned with injury to reputation resulting from words written or spoken by others and that it may be defined as a statement which tends: (a) to lower the claimant in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally, or (b) to expose him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or (c) to cause other persons to shun or avoid him, or (d) to discredit him in his office, trade or profession; or (e) to injure his financial credit. The basis for the action of the Claimant in defamation is the letter of dismissal sent to him by the 1st Defendant. The letter was written to and addressed to the Claimant. It was not addressed to any other person. The content was meant for the Claimant and the Claimant alone to digest. The information in it was for him and no other person. An essential element of the Tort of Defamation is that it must be published. If therefore the Claimant decided on his own to show the letter of dismissal which he alleged to have defamed him to any other person then he would have done so to his disadvantage. I hold that no defamation was proved by the Claimant against the 1st Defendant to merit judicial intervention in award of general damages as sought by the Claimant. Thus, I refuse and dismiss this claim for =N=50,000,000.00 as general damages against the 1st Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Finally, for the avoidance doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">1. I declare that the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant was wrongful and that the wrongful dismissal constitutes a breach of contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">2. I declare and convert the dismissal of the Claimant from the employment of the 1st Defendant to termination of employment and for which the Claimant is entitled to all necessary benefits attaching.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">3. The 1st Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant one month basic salary in lieu of termination of his employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">4. I order and direct the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira only to the Claimant as special damages being the cost of medical treatment of the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">5. I refuse the declaration sought that the 1st Defendant frivolously set the law in motion against him. I also refuse to grant the sum of =N=20,000,000.00 sought as general damages against the Defendants for setting the law in motion against him frivolously.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">6. I refuse and dismiss all the claims for general damages against the 1st Defendant for breach of contract. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">7. I also refuse and dismiss the claim for general damages against the 1st Defendant for medical treatment special damages having been awarded respecting the same head of claim.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">8. I refuse and dismiss this claim for =N=50,000,000.00 sought as general damages against the 1st Defendant for the defamation of the Claimant's character..<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">9. The 1st Defendant is ordered and directed to pay the sum of =N=100,000.00 to the Claimant as cost of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormalCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">All the terms of this Judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Judgment is entered accordingly.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span style="font-size:12.5pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""> </span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" align="center" style="margin-left:0in; mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">____________________<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" align="center" style="margin:0in;margin-bottom: .0001pt;mso-add-space:auto;text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family:"Times New Roman","serif"">Hon. Justice J. D. Peters<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-bottom:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt; text-align:center;line-height:normal"><span style="font-size:12.5pt;font-family: "Times New Roman","serif"">Presiding Judge</span><span style="font-size:13.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif""><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>