Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -27.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">REPRESENTATION: <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -27.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">O.O. Iranloye counsel for the claimant <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -27.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Folami Oloyede counsel for the defendant<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-align:center; text-indent:-27.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-align:center; text-indent:-27.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">JUDGMENT<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is the case of the claimant as per his sworn deposition filed along with his complaint that he was employed by the defendant on 10<sup>th</sup> September, 2008 as Head of Account. That according to the term contained in the letter of appointment, his probation period shall be at least six (6) months after which his employment will be confirmed and that during the period, not less than 30 days notice is required from either side in case of termination or resignation of appointment. That by a letter dated September 9<sup>th</sup>, 2014 in line with defendant’s policies, Term and Condition of service, he gave one month Notice of his intention to resign his appointment with effect from 10<sup>th</sup> October, 2014, stating that he would appreciate it if his final entitlement are calculated and paid at the point of his exit. He also averred that in line with defendant policies, terms and condition of service, his employment with defendant was deemed to terminate on his last day of notice (10<sup>th</sup> October, 2014) and that accrued leave may however be incorporated on notice period. He further averred that on the 9<sup>th</sup> of September, 2014, consequent upon his resignation as Head of Account and Administration, necessary handover of his duties were hand over to one Rosemary Ekong (defendant Officer). That it was the defendant’s policies, terms and condition that his severance benefit payable at the point of exit shall be as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> A. Cash Benefit<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:85.5pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">* Annual basic salary plus allowance for every year of service up to a limit of five (5) years of service. Any part of first year shall be treated as one year when subsequent years shall be prorated including one with more than <b>six months</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:90.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -54.0pt"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">B. Other Benefit<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:90.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">* Purchase of car under car ownership scheme staff with company car(s) under car ownership shall be allowed to purchase the car at a <b>book value </b>or <b>10%</b> of original cost (whichever is lower).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">He pleaded further that it was the defendant’s representation that if he remains on the defendant’s employment for not less than five or consecutive year and resigns his appointment either compulsory or voluntarily, he shall be paid gratuity of 100% of his annual basic salary plus Housing Allowance, Transport Allowance. The sum of the above shall be multiplied by the number of years claimant served the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">He continued that on the 22<sup>nd</sup> of September, 2014 he notified the Securities and Exchange Commission, being the Supervisory body of the defendant of his resignation with the defendant and that by a letter dated November 17<sup>th</sup>, 2014 he requested from the defendant, payment of his full entitlement and also demanded for the payment of his September salary up to 10<sup>th</sup> September, 2014. He stated further that following the refusal of defendant to accede to his demand, he wrote a letter of reminder on the 12<sup>th</sup> February, 2015 demanding payment of his entitlement, i.e. Gratuity: (Annual salary plus Housing & Transport allowances by the number of years served N2,158,504.69) N12,952,170.00; Profit sharing for year 2013, i.e. N280,000.00; 2014 Performance Inducement Pay (PIP), i.e. N600,000.00; September 2014 salary, N480,000.00, all totaling <b>N14,312,170.00</b>. The claimant went on that he wrote another reminder by a letter dated 10<sup>th</sup> March, 2015, six months after his voluntary retirement and that on the 16<sup>th</sup> June, 2015, his Solicitors also wrote to the defendant demanding for payment of his severance benefit and entitlement of the above stated amount, which the defendant failed, neglected and or omitted to pay. Consequent upon which the claimant filed a Complaint on 24<sup>th</sup>July, 2015, with all his accompanying processes wherein he claimed against the defendant as follows:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-indent:-27.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">1. The sum of N14, 312,170.00 only, being unpaid Gratuity, Profit sharing for year 2013, Performance Inducement Pay (PIP) 2014 and September salary for 2014 lawfully due to claimant which defendant have failed, neglected and omitted to pay despite repeated demand.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:27.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -27.0pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">2. Interest on the said N14,312,170.00 at interest rate of 15% from 10<sup>th</sup> October, 2014 until payment and thereafter until the judgment sum is liquidated with cost of this action.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">He tendered documents admitted and marked as Exhibits AA1-AA7. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendant in its defence denied issuing any staff handbook to the claimant and stated that the relationship between parties was regulated by only provisions of the letter of employment. It further averred that the purported staff handbook is not an extension of the letter of employment of the claimant. It also denied representing to the claimant that any gratuity or any other allowances will be paid to him upon his resignation after completing whatever period of employment with it. It is defendant’s further averment that it was not privy to any letter written by the claimant to the Security and Exchange Commission upon his resignation. That the claimant is not entitled to any final entitlement and as such nothing of such nature was paid. Furthermore, it stated that the claimant failed to complete the notice period stipulated in his letter of employment and that made him ineligible for the September, 2014 salary as he stopped coming to work on September 17, 2014. The defendant stated that the claimant was never entitled to profit sharing for year 2013 and Performance Inducement Pay, that all these are strange to the relationship between parties while it lasted and that the staff handbook being relied on by the claimant was never approved by its Board of Directors.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendant testified through one Oluwadare Akingbola, the Acting Managing Director of the defendant. He adopted his witness statement on oath as his evidence before the court. He identified exhibits AA1, AA2 and AA3. He admitted that the claimant as the Head of Accounts represented the defendant at SEC. He stated that the defendant notified SEC of the claimant’s exit but the claimant opted to write to SEC informing them about his exit. He posited that claimant’s entitlement has been duly paid in the sum of about N700,000.00. That claimant was paid based on management discretion as same was paid for other officers.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">At the close of evidence, the defendant filed its final written address on the 20<sup>th</sup> October, 2016, the defendant framed a sole issue for determination of the court, viz:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether the Staff Handbook tendered by the claimant’s witness is binding on the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In arguing the sole issue, it is the defendant’s counsel submission that the staff handbook being relied on by the claimant is not binding on it as same does not form part of the contract between parties. It continued to submit that claimant tendered his letter of appointment and under cross-examination confirmed that there is no mention of any staff handbook in the letter and that the staff handbook was only handed over to him along with the letter of appointment and that he received without raising any objection whatsoever in writing or otherwise. He posited that it is the law that courts should not read anything further to the letter of employment between an employer and employee except there is a reference to same in the letter of employment. Referring to the case of <b>Agbolade Babatunde Osiyemi v. Societe Generale Bank Ltd [2001] 11 NWLR (Pt. 725) 563</b>. It is counsel’s argument that assuming but not conceding that the staff handbook is binding, that the provision of clause 3.8 therein is that a confirmed management staff like the claimant may terminate his appointment by giving three months’ notice in writing or payment in lieu and that the claimant’s letter of resignation only gave one month notice. That by this, the claimant can be said to have absconded from work when he stopped going to work and therefore cannot ask the court to order it to pay him any exit benefit, rather the court ought to order him to pay two months’ salary in lieu of his insufficient notice. Continuing counsel submitted that assuming the claimant’s notice period of one month is valid and if the staff handbook is also valid, the claimant was in breach of Clause 4.6(a) of the handbook as he had stopped going to work on September 17<sup>th</sup>, 2014 when his Notice of Resignation of Appointment dated September 9<sup>th</sup>, 2014 was to lapse on October 9<sup>th</sup>, 2014. That by this, he did not complete the notice period of one month which he claims to be the appropriate notice period. counsel finally submitted that it has never been the attitude of the courts to aid and/or permit a party to get a benefit while denying or avoiding due liabilities as he who goes to equity must go with clean hands. He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On the 4<sup>th</sup> November, 2016, the claimant on the other hand filed his final written address wherein he formulated one issue for determination of the court, which is:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Whether or not claimant giving by oral and documentary evidence is entitled to the relief being sought before the Honourable court against the defendant.</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In addressing this sole issue, claimant counsel submitted that claimant has proved his entitlement to N14,312,170.00 being the unpaid Gratuity, Profit Sharing for the year 2013, Performance Inducement Pay for 2014 and unpaid September salary for 2014 as well as interest at 15% from 10<sup>th</sup> October, 2014 until payment and also the cost of the action from the evidence he placed before the court both oral and documentary as well as evidence adduced under cross examination. Counsel cited the cases of <b>Godwin C. Onovo & Ors v. Ferdinands & MBA &Ors [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 765) 298 @ pg 314</b> and <b>Ibrahim Sakati v. Jabule Bako & Anor [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 800) @ pg 1182 at 1208 paras A-B </b>and posited that the primary onus of proving a case lies on the plaintiff and that the onus may be discharged in the pleadings since there is no onus to prove what has been admitted. He also posited that where no pleadings are filed, the totality of evidence adduced by both side has to be considered in relation to the substance of the plaintiffs’ complaint against the defendant to determine whether or not the burden of proof has been discharged. He continued that burden of proof here means the burden of adducing evidence and that this may shift depending on the preponderance of evidence and that it rests on the party who would fail if no evidence at all or no more evidence were led on either side. Counsel submitted that in the instant case, claimant was able to discharge the burden on him as he tendered his Letter of Appointment comprising his benefit; Letter of Resignation; Defendant Staff Handbook regulating Terms, Policies and Condition of Employment; Diamond for unpaid severance benefit<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Continuing counsel stated that civil cases are decided on a balance of probabilities based on preponderance of evidence, he relied on the decisions of Supreme Court in <b>Mr. Segun Babatunde v. Bank of the North Ltd [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 608) 798 @ pg 802 – 803 </b>and <b>Union Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Alhaji Adams Ajabule & Anor [2012] All FWLR (Pt. 611) 1413 @ pg 1419 at p. 1438 paras B-D, </b>he submitted that bindingness of parties by terms of written contract is considered as proper approach of court to construction of inadmissibility of oral evidence to variation of written contract as a written contract agreement freely entered into by parties is binding on them and a court of law is equally bound by the terms of any written contract entered into by the parties. In the instant case, counsel submitted that claimant’s claim was anchored on payment due to him as contained in his Letter of Appointment and Staff Handbook especially clause 3.15 and 4.9 respectively. In furtherance of his argument, he cited <b>Dr. Soga Ogundalu v. Chief A.E.O. MACJOB [2015] All FWLR (Pt. 784) 103 at pg. 109 P. 132; Michael Awieh & Ors v. Chief Johnson Fada Owofio [2014]All FWLR (Pt. 745) @ 242 </b>where the courts considered what a party seeking enforcement of contractual rights must establish and that the intentions of parties to a written contract are construed from the contract. He therefore submitted further that the intention of the parties in a written contract is always to be gathered from the documents itself and that the terms of the contract are to be determined by the parties and not the court. That all that a court does is to construe the words used by the parties in the agreement and that if the parties have agreed between themselves upon conditions for the formation of a contract and those conditions were embodied in a document i.e. Letter of Appointment and Staff Handbook, then they are bound by the terms and condition set down in the documents. He referred to the cases of <b>Owoniboys Tech Services Ltd v. Union Bank of Nigeria Plc [2003] FWLR (Pt. 180) 1529, [2003] 15 NWLR (Pt. 844) 545 SC; Nneji v. Zakhem CON. (Nig) Ltd [2006] All FWLR (Pt. 330) 1021, (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994 297)</b>. He then submitted that the defendant is estopped from resiling from the terms of the agreement it entered into with him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">In his argument on claim for 15% interest from date of defendant’s refusal to date of payment, counsel submitted that the basis of award of interest was considered in <b>Skymit Motors Ltd v. United Bank for Africa Plc [2014] All FWLR (Pt. 721) 1547 @ pg 1552 – 1553. </b>He also referred to <b>Daniel Holdings Ltd v. U.B.A. Plc (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 277) 895 pp. 1566 – 1567, paras F-B. </b>Counsel submitted that from claimant’s pleadings and evidence before the court, he had been denied his entitlement since 10<sup>th</sup> October, 2014.He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">I have had a careful and an indepth perusal of the processes filed in this matter; the testimonies of both witnesses, the documents tendered and admitted, the written addresses of both counsel and authorities cited in support. It is in the considered view of the court that the issue for the court's determination is whether or not claimant has proven his case to be so entitled.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is not in contention that the claimant on the 9<sup>th</sup> of September, 2014 resigned his employment with the defendant, the only area of divergence is according to the defendant that the claimant is not entitled to any gratuity of any sort as there is none in any contract of employment regulating their relationship. It also denied the existence of the staff hand book purportedly relied on by the claimant. The claimant in stating his case contended that his employment with the defendant is regulated by exhibits AA2 and AA6, i.e. his letter of employment and the defendant's staff Handbook. It is the law that the foundation upon which an employment relationship can thrive and be determined is the contract of employment, which is sometimes contained in a letter of employment and an employee’s handbook, where applicable. See <b>P.A.N. V.Oje [1997]11 NWLR (PT. 530)625CA; <span class="apple-style-span">Regd. Trustees, P.P.F.N. v. Shogbola [2004] 11 NWLR (Pt.883)1;</span> and the case of</b> <b>Mrs KehindeAbimbola v Mainstreet Bank Registrars Unreported suit No NICN/LA/517/2013 delivered on the 27<sup>th</sup> of May, 2015. </b>The major pertinent questions that need answers as regards the staff handbook is whether or not it emanated from the defendant, and if so does it contain the terms and conditions of the contract of employment regulating the affairs of both parties? In answering this question recourse is made to exhibit AA6 at paragraphs 1.2 which states as it is hereunder reproduced for ease of reference thus-<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> “The staff handbook is intended to provide you with information about the company, its rules, and regulations and general conditions of employment. It is an <u>amplification of the terms set out in your letter of appointment. </u>(Emphasis mine)…..â€<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The word Amplify as defined by the 21<sup>st</sup> Century dictionary revised edition 2006 at page 41 edited by Mairi Robinson means 'to increase the strength of'. Applying the meaning to this case, it means that the handbook is a detailed provision of the terms of contract of employment that could not be stated in the letter of employment and also gives a further elucidation of what is in the letter of employment, hence the handbook and the letter of employment are inter-related and regulates the contract of employment of the claimant. Now, the main question that requires an answer for the just determination of this suit, is whether or not the Staff Handbook exhibit AA6 is the defendant's staff Handbook as contended by the claimant. It is obvious on exhibit AA2, i.e. the claimant's letter of appointment dated 15th September, 2008 is on the letter headed paper of Afribank Registrars Ltd, while exhibit AA6 is also the staff Handbook of the Afribank Registrars Ltd. It is noteworthy that claimant's letter of employment was signed by one C.O. Ukandu, Managing Director/CEO of the defendant at that time. It is equally germane to state that C.O. Ukandu the then MD/CEO in Suit No NICN/ <b>/LA/335/2013, MR. CHESTER ONYEMAECHIE UKANDU V. MAINSTREET BANK REGISTRARS LIMITED,</b> where the defendant equally denied the Staff Handbook,<b> </b>Judgment of which was delivered on 27th May, 2015, the court held thus<b>-- <o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:35.45pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The claimant stated in evidence that the handbook was approved by the defendant's board of directors at the meeting of 13/9/06 and partly approved by management and that the compilation of same is a management function. On a closer look at exhibit CU9, i.e. the minute of meeting of 13/9/06 made reference to staff remuneration package and benefits at paragraphs 8.01 and 8.02 and appendix (i) and (ii) all evince that the content of the handbook are issues already discussed and approved by the board of directors of the defendant. The defendant's company secretary, i.e. DW1 Mr. Adetayo Ogunbanjo admitted under cross examination that the defendant's board approved remuneration and certain structure of the defendant at its meeting of 13/9/06. DW1 also admitted that 13 months salary paid to defendant's staff was approved by the board as bonus, which he equally agreed to be at paragraph 4.5 of the staff handbook. I agree with the claimant who was the Managing Director of the defendant at the time the handbook was compiled, that it is a management function to produce a handbook based on an approved terms by the board of directors. It is also on record that the claimant's appointment letter referred to other conditions of service. The Court of Appeal in E.C.W.A V. DELE [2004] 10 FWLR (PT. 230) 297, held that where the conditions of service applicable at the time of appointment had in the meantime been amended or replaced, the relevant condition of service is the one that is applicable at the time of termination of appointment. To hold that it is the one applicable at the time of appointment will mean that if the amended one, or the new one introduces benefits such as improved conditions of service, which ought to be the case. CW stated under cross examination that exhibit CU5 was reprinted and CU5 is the reprinted copy after the approval of the content, which is the terms and conditions approved by the board of directors. The action of the MD/CEO which was approved by the board of directors and who also gave him power to so act, is valid and cannot at this stage be denied by the defendant on whose approval he so acted. The Court base on all the above stated facts believe the claimant and thus attaches probative value to the defendant's staff handbook. I so hold. <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is obvious from my decision in Chester O. Ukandu's case supra and the sister cases of <b>Mrs KehindeAbimbola v Mainstreet Bank Registrars Unreported (supra); Awe Olugbenga V. Mainstreet Registrars Ltd, Suit No NIC/LA/515/2013, a judgment delivered on 30th September, 2015; Inowan Benson V. Mainstreet Registrars Ltd, Suit No NIC/LA/421/2013, a judgment delivered on 25th November, 2016 and Godspower Julius Imonike V. Mainstreet Registrars Ltd, Suit No NIC/LA/518, a judgment delivered on 12th July, 2016. </b>In all these cases where the MD/CEO Chester Ukandu testified as a subpoenaed witness CW2, he reiterated his statement as captured in Chester Ukandu's case, supra, that he got the Board's approval for all the terms contained in the staff Handbook and pertinent portions was corroborated by the Company Secretary one Adetayo Ogunbanjo. I discountenance and disbelieve DW's testimony as regards the staff Handbook, this is because he admitted that he was not in the services of the defendant at that time. I also discountenance learned defence counsel's argument that if anything at all the Handbook ''is nothing but a collective or gentleman's agreement..'' It is mind boggling for a counsel who is supposed to be seise of the current position of the law to refer to a collective agreement as a gentleman's agreement. Counsel needs be told that by Section 254C(1) (j)(i) of 1999 Constitution as amended, collective agreement is no longer a gentleman's agreement but an enforceable agreement. It is consequent upon all the facts before me as well as the decision of this court in the above cited cases that I find that exhibit AA6 is the defendant's staff Handbook as admitted by the MD/CEO who signed claimant's appointment letter. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Having held that exhibit AA6 is the staff handbook of the defendant, is claimant entitled to his claims under the staff Handbook? the claimant's contention is that by virtue of exhibit AA6, he is entitled to the sum of N14, 312,170.00 which consists of; <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left:7.1pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -7.1pt"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">*Gratuity:(Annual salary plus Housing & Transport allowances by the number of years served N2,158,504.69) N12,952,170.00<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">*Profit sharing for year 2013 N280,000.00<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">*2014 Performance Inducement Pay (PIP) N600,000.00<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">*September 2014 salary N480,000.00<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top:0cm;margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt"><v:shapetype id="_x0000_t32" coordsize="21600,21600" o:spt="32" o:oned="t" path="m,l21600,21600e" filled="f"> <v:path arrowok="t" fillok="f" o:connecttype="none"> <o:lock v:ext="edit" shapetype="t"> </o:lock></v:path></v:shapetype><v:shape id="_x0000_s1026" type="#_x0000_t32" style="position:absolute; left:0;text-align:left;margin-left:278.4pt;margin-top:1.3pt;width:99pt; height:0;z-index:251667456" o:connectortype="straight"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> <b>N14,312,170.00<o:p></o:p></b></span></v:shape></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">DW under oath stated that claimant was paid about N700,000 as his entitlement and this the claimant also admitted vide his reply on defendant’s statement of defence that on the 27<sup>th</sup> April, 2015, the defendant paid the sum of N739, 084.00 into his account, which sum is grossly below his severance sum owed and due to him by the defendant, hence on the 16th June, 2015 vide exhibit AA7, he instructed his counsel to further write the defendant to request for payment of his severance benefit and entitlements.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is a trite position of the law that an employee who leaves the services of his employer is entitled to his accrued terminal benefits. Is the claimant in the instance c entitled to any accrued terminal benefits? It is the defendant's contention first that claimant by exhibit AA6, i.e. the staff Handbook is to give it 3 months notice and not one month and also that he was paid N700,000.00 at the discretion of management. These two arguments would be considered together. However, the defendant failed to tell the court what that amount stands for, whether or not it is his gratuity or just a gift or part payment of his terminal benefit. DW stated that the money was given at the discretion of the Management. It is obvious from the circumstances of this case that the defendant was practically forced to give the claimant the sum of N700,000 after he had made several demands for his final entitlements since 2014 when he resigned his appointment what it called a payment at the discretion of management. What then is the place of the contract of employment that regulated their relationship, if payment of terminal benefits is at the discretion of management? This I must say without mincing words that it is most unfair labour practice and against international best practice as ILO frowns against treatment of employees in this manner. The defendant makes it seems as if it has done the claimant a very outstanding favour by giving him the sum of N700,000.00 by its management. The sanctity of the employment contract must be respected and upheld by the court. the provision of the terms of contract between the duo is binding on them and must be obeyed. I so find and hold. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now, would it be right to hold that claimant did not comply with the terms of his contract by giving the defendant one month notice as opposed to 3 months notice as alleged by the defendant. It is plain on exhibit AA2, i.e. claimant's letter of appointment that he is to give 30 days notice to the defendant in case of termination or resignation of appointment during the period of probation. This was corroborated by the claimant vide paragraph 9 of his sworn deposition dated 24th July, 2015. Meanwhile by clause 3.13 of exhibit AA6, the staff Handbook, on resignation, a management staff is to give two months notice and Senior management is to give 3 months notice. It is the argument of the defendant that claimant did not give it 3 months notice, but gave one month and that is contrary to the terms of the contract of employment. Claimant in his testimony contended that he was given the staff Handbook upon his employment, hence he does not know the procedure through which it was made. The import of which is that exhibit AA6, was in existence before claimant was appointment by the defendant. No wonder, exhibit AA2 was silent on termination of employment after confirmation of employment, because it has been taken care of in exhibit AA6, i.e. the staff Handbook. It is apparent on exhibit AA3, that claimant gave one month notice of his intention to resign, which is far below the required notice period per the contract of employment. This is contrary to the contract of employment. I find by exhibit AA3 and AA6, that claimant's one month notice of resignation is inadequate, therefore I resolve this issue in favour of the defendant, claimant is to pay the remainder of the two months salary in lieu of notice to the defendant. I so find and hold. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Now, is the claimant entitled to his claims? He is seeking for gratuity in the sum of N12,952,170.00, 2013 profit sharing; 2014 Performance Inducement Pay; and September, 2014 salary. By exhibit AA6 paragraph 4.9, claimant having spent 6 years in the services of the defendant, is entitled to gratuity to be paid to him by the defendant as 100% annual basic salary, plus monthly Housing, Transport allowances, total of which is to be multiplied by the number of years he served the company, which in this case is 6 years. In calculating this claimant left the court without his payslip or statement of account to evince his salary at the point of exit from the company and so the only document available in aid of the court in this regard is his letter of employment exhibit AA2. By exhibit AA2, claimant's annual basic salary is N591,360.00 plus N64,936.67 and N32,723.33 as his monthly Housing and Transport allowances multiplied by 6 years will give the sum of N4,134,119.82. Consequently, I find that claimant is entitled to the sum of N4,134,119.82 as gratuity. I so hold. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">Next, is his claim for 2013 profit sharing, 2014 Performance Inducement pay. It is defendant contention that claimant is not entitled to profit sharing for years 2013 and Performance Inducement Pay. The claimant on whose shoulders rests the onus of proving the reliefs sought has failed to adduce sufficient evidence in prove of his claims. There is nothing in either the letter of appointment or the staff Handbook in support of this claims. It is on this premise that I find that claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to 2013 profit sharing and Performance Inducement pay. Accordingly, claimant's claim for 2013 profit sharing and Performance inducement pay fail. I so hold. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">As for the claimant's claim for September 2014 salary, it is obvious from all the above decision that claimant is to pay the two months salary in lieu of notice to the defendant, which is to be deducted from the sum of N4,134,119.82 gratuity the defendant is to pay him. Meanwhile the defendant is to deduct the sum of N739,084.00 partly paid to the claimant and two months salary in lieu of notice from the sum of N4,134,119.82. It is claimant's assertion that his monthly salary was N480,000, two months salary therefore, will be N960,000.00 and N739,084.00 deducted from N4,134,119.82, will give a balance of N2,435,035.82. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 14pt; line-height: 115%; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">It is in conclusion that I hold that claimant's reliefs succeeds in part and is to the extent that he is to be paid the sum of N2,435,035.82 as gratuity within 21 days of this judgment, failing which it is to attract 15% interest per annum. While claimant's claim for profit sharing and Performance inducement Pay fail. Claimant is to pay the sum of N960,000.00 as two months salary in lieu of notice to the defendant, same already deducted from his gratuity supra. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Parties are to bear their respective costs.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Judgment is accordingly entered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">Hon. Justice Oyewumi Oyejoju Oyebiola<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Hon. Justice Oyewumi Oyebiola O.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><b><span style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language:EN-GB;mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Presiding Judge<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:justify"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></p>