Download PDF
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">REPRESENTION- <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">Paul Okoh with him are I Edokwe, (Miss.) and B.N Chukwu for the Claimant.<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">Dr. Charles Mekwunye with him are OlatokunboAkinrele (Mrs.), Ekene Nwonu, E.O Kalu, E.OAliyu, J.A Nsofor, Yeside Ayen-iIdahosa (Mrs), R.O Alli, Babajide Kenshinro, John Ochada and Stephen Olasite for the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" align="center" style="text-align:center"><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="text-align:center"><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">The claimant on the 26<sup>th</sup> of September, 2013 filed against the defendant and claims as follows;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpFirst" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l6 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">A declaration that the purported termination of his employment with the defendant is invalid, ineffectual, wrongful and in breach of his terms of employment with the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l6 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">N114, 113.72 being 1 month salary in lieu of notice for the month of July, 2012.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoListParagraphCxSpLast" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:-18.0pt; mso-list:l6 level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Terminal benefits in the sum of N2,738,729.28 less N139, 686.75.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is the claimant’s case as per his sworn deposition that by a letter dated 4<sup>th</sup> of January, 2008 he was employed by the defendant as a senior clerk. That his appointment was confirmed </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">vide a letter dated October 8<sup>th</sup> 2008. That his terms of employment is contained in his letter of appointment and in the staff handbook. He averred that by a letter dated 28/6/2013 the defendant purportedly terminated his appointment in clear breach of the claimant's terms and conditions of service. He contends that as a confirmed staff, he was entitled to one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N114, 113.72. He also contends that having served the defendant for more than five years he is entitled to a terminal benefit of N2, 738,729.28 calculated based on his January 2013 pay slip as follows annual basic salary plus all allowances for every year of service up to a limit of 2 years which aggregates to N1,369,364 x 2. That the defendant on the 20/8/2013 unilaterally paid the sum of N139,686.75 into his salary account. Continuing, he stated that on the 21<sup>st</sup> of August, 2013 his solicitors wrote to the defendant rejecting the sums paid and requested the defendant to recall the payment or consider it as part of his entitlement. He stated further that the defendant's Board of Directors at the Annual General Meeting had earlier approved his entitlements as claimed which entitlement was signed by the current chairman and Acting Managing Director of the defendant. He pleaded that he has not been paid his one month salary in lieu of notice and outstanding terminal benefit till date.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:11.0pt;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The claimant's testimony as CW1 reproduced above and also subpoenaed one Chester O. Ukandu ( The erstwhile MD/CEO) of the defendant as CW2. They tendered documents which the court admitted and marked as Exhibits AA1-AA10. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:11.0pt;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">CW2 on the other hand stated in his evidence-in-chief that the CW1 is well known to him while he was the erstwhile and pioneer Managing Director of the defendant until he retired in 2012. He identified Exhibit AA2 as the defendant’s staff handbook which was printed during his headship of the defendant's Company in 2008 and the management gave this copy to the claimant. He posited that exhibit AA3 is a10 page minutes of the board meeting held on the 13<sup>th</sup> of September, 2006 which he attended as the MD. That appendix one of the 13<sup>th</sup> of September, 2006 meeting shows the salary structure, appendix 2 other benefits, terms and condition of service which he presented to the Board and which they approved. He also posited that exhibit AA10 is a general memo dated 28<sup>th</sup> of July, 2011 on terminal benefits, it was signed by him as the MD/CEO of the defendant. He stated further that exhibit AA10 referred to the handbook and the handbook was always in use throughout his stay in the defendant’s employment. He continued that exhibit AA8 is annual returns together with the financial statement of the company and he has retired when the financial statement was prepared in 2011. Under oath he posited that though the claimant's and other staff names were not specifically mentioned in Exhibits AA3 which referred to AA2, it was the terms and conditions of service for all employees which he was one. He admitted and repeated that the management gave the claimant the handbook. He admitted his statement on the 20<sup>th</sup> of May, 2014 where he stated that the staff handbook was printed in April, 2008. He stated that though he retired when the 2012 benefits was made but the provisions to it was made before he left. He posited that page 9 of exhibit AA3 is part of the minutes and appendix I and 2 is the documents approved by the Board. He stated that there were about forty-five members of staff including him.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="Style" style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-right:11.0pt;margin-bottom:0cm; margin-left:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The Defendant on the other hand denying the averment of the claimant, traversed that the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimant are strictly contained in his appointment letter dated January 4, 2008 and not governed by any staff hand- book as the Defendant does not have a staff hand-book neither did the Defendant at any time approve nor issue any staff hand-book to the Claimant or any member of staff or ex staff. The defendant stated that the Claimant's employment letter did in fact state that other terms and conditions of service' shall be as applicable to the grade' but denies that these terms and conditions were ever reduced into writing in any staff hand-book approved by the Defendant's Board of Directors and/or issued by the Defendant to the Claimant. Defendant continued that the 'Other terms and conditions of service' as stated in his employment letter are;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:126.0pt;text-indent:-18.0pt; line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> assessment for and duration of period for confirmation<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:130.5pt;text-indent:-22.5pt; line-height:115%;mso-list:l4 level1 lfo1"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">b.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">hours of work. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendant averred further that minutes of meeting dated 13/9/2006 or 13/9/2007 pleaded by the Claimant is not minutes of meeting of the Defendant's Board of Directors of 13/9/2006 or 13/09/2007 and does not constitute the proper records of any meeting and/or decision made by the Board of Directors of the Defendant as the date on the purported minutes had been altered from 2006 to 2007; the minutes was not signed by the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Defendant and contains attachments which are extraneous to the minutes; the Claimant is not the maker of the minutes and the claimant is not a custodian of minutes of any meeting of any board of director as he is not the chairman, director or secretary of the board of director. That the claimant’s termination of appointment dated June 28, 2013 was in accordance with the contract of employment. Defendant admitted that the Claimant is entitled to be given one month's notice or one month's basic salary in lieu of notice and that it had already paid the sum of N10,846.00 (Ten Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty Six Naira only) which is the Claimant's one month basic salary into his Mainstreet bank Ltd account with it. It is the defendant’s pleadings that on the 20<sup>th</sup> of August, 2013 it also graciously approved the sum </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:105%; mso-bidi-language:HE">of N139,686.75 (One Hundred and Thirty Nine Thousand, Six Hundred and Eighty Six Naira, Seventy five kobo) as </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">ex gratia </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%;mso-bidi-language:HE">payment to the Claimant, hence a total sum of N150,532.75(One Hundred and Fifty Thousand, Five Hundred and Thirty Two Naira, Seventy Five kobo). It stated that the claimant within the 3<sup>rd</sup> of July an 20<sup>th</sup> of September, 2013 had withdrew the sum of N150,000 from his bank account with it thus making the determination of employment mutual and estopped from claiming that his appointment was not properly terminated. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That the claimant is not entitled to the sum of N114,113.72 as one month salary in lieu of notice or any sum at all. The Defendant states that the Claimant's appointment was not terminated for Redundancy but was terminated in accordance with the terms of his contract; at any event, terminal benefits for Redundancy was never contemplated by the Defendant and the Claimant when the employment agreement was executed. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendant stressed that the Claimant is not entitled to any terminal benefit in the sum of N2,738,729.28 (Two Million, Seven Hundred and Thirty Eight Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty Nine Naira, and Twenty Eight Kobo). Defence also stated that the basis of the claimant’s claim is based on a nonÂexistent staff hand-book, that the claimant is very much aware that the Defendant has no staff hand-book. The defendant averred that the funds accrued by the defendant in its financial statement contained in the Annual Return for 2011 are mere savings of the defendant earmarked for a purpose which the defendant is free to change at any future date and use the money so accrued for any other purpose or purposes depending on exigencies of business. The defendant continued that though there was a staff Handbook drafted by the committee of members of staff of the defendant company but it was never approved by the Board of Directors of the Defendant thus the defendant does not have any staff hand book and the purported handbook relied upon by the claimant did not emanate from the defendant. The Defendant continued that the purported financial statement for year 2011 is irrelevant and inadmissible as the Claimant is not the maker; the admission therein offends against the provisions of hearsay evidence; the financial statement is not an approval for payment of terminal benefits for the claimant and it only dealt with accrual of terminal benefits of a company which was and is still a going concern; it is not part of the contract of employment between the claimant and the Defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">The defendant also denies</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> the averment of the claimant with regards to internal mail dated 28/7/2011 and states that it never circulated or approved the circulation of any mail to its staff as the defendant is a going concern and at all material times, particularly from July, 2011 to December, 2011 the defendant had 44 people on its payroll including Mr. Chester Onyemaechi Ukandu (the erstwhile Managing Director).The defendant posited that the Claimant's claims are ill-conceived, irrational, frivolous, troublesome, an attempt at undeserved enrichment and should be dismissed with substantial costs against the Claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendant during trial testified through one Adetayo Ogunbanjo, its Company Secretary as DW1 and Oluwadare Akingbola The defendant's Acting Managing Director as DW2, they adopted their witness statements on oath as their evidence and tendered documents which were admitted and marked as exhibits AO1-AO13 and OK1. DW1 stated that the claimant’s employment was terminated as his services were no longer required on the 28<sup>th</sup> of June, 2013. He also stated that on the 1<sup>st</sup> of July, 2013 the claimant’s was paid his one month basic salary in lieu of notice. He further stated that he does not know if the claimant rejected the salary or not. He stated that he knows that former Managing Director Mr. Ahaiwe who is no longer in the defendant’s employment has a pending matter in this court. He stated that Mr. Ahaiwe was not a Board member, as at 7<sup>th</sup> of December, 2012. He also stated that the no of staff as at 2012 was 44. He confirmed that exhibits AA3and AO5 are the same. He admitted that the Board presented the remuneration package presented to the Board by CW2 and he also admitted that the minutes of 13/9/2006 was approved without any amendment but he posited that what was adopted at the meeting of 17<sup>th</sup> of May, 2007 was precisely pages 1-10 of the minutes of 13<sup>th</sup> of September, 2006 as the CW2 who was at the meeting did not bring to the meeting the attachments. He contended that he does not know the staff handbook one Oluwadare Akingbola (The acting Managing) referred to when he was shown page 22 of exhibit AO8.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">DW2 stated that exhibit OK1 reads June salary and it is about N76,891.That CW one month basic salary was arrived at vide his letter of employment. He stated that the management Board has the discretion to compensate staff appropriately. He posited that claimant’s salary in lieu of notice was paid on the 1<sup>st</sup> of July, 2013. He confirmed that exhibit AA7 counsel’s letter rejecting the payment was not responded to by the defendant. He denied that there is a handbook between the claimant and the defendant. He confirmed that the remuneration package presented by the CW2 was approved by the board and that the claimant’s service was no longer required by the defendant. He stated that exhibit AA10 signed by CW2 does not emanates from the defendant. He stated that prior to 2014 the defendant had no handbook.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">At the close of testimony, the defendant on the 5<sup>th</sup> December, 2016 filed its written address wherein it distilled two issues for the court’s determination;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the employment of the claimant was properly terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l9 level1 lfo2"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language: HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%; mso-bidi-language:HE">Whether the claimant is entitled to the terminal benefit in the sum of N2, 738,738.28 or any other sum as terminal benefit by virtue of his contract of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel framed the following preliminary issues;</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></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-font-width:90%; mso-bidi-language:HE">Photocopy of the purported minutes of the defendant's board of directors meeting of 13th September, </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">2006 with extraneous attachments - Exhibit AA3<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel posited that the claimant tendered photocopies consisting of several loose sheets purporting to be the minutes notwithstanding the fact that the said documents are clearly at variance with what is contained in the original minutes book of the defendant. He stated that the relevant minutes of 13/09/2006 was pasted on the defendant’s minutes book several years before this dispute arose. Continuing counsel posited that while the original minutes as pasted in the official minutes book of the company consist of only 10 pages and the loose sheets photocopies frontloaded by the claimant is having 15 pages. He submitted that the practice of smuggling in a document which is not pleaded from the backdoor by annexing same to a pleaded document is unacceptable and thus the secondary copy of the minute of the defendant board meeting of 13<sup>th</sup> of September, 2006 which was admitted by the court and marked as Exhibit AA3 was wrongly admitted. He also submitted that exhibit AO5 is the certified true copy made from and compared with original minutes </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">in the original minutes book by the Court which is a prima facie evidence of the proceedings of 13<sup>th</sup> September, 2006 and until properly challenged by evidence, the Court is required to admit same and to act only on same and none other document. Counsel cited Section 241 (1) & (2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:90%;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">Counsel contended that the presence of the annexure after the chairman's signature to the minute renders the said Exhibit AA3 worthless of any credibility. He cited the case of <b>INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL LTD </b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">&ANOR. V. CHIKA BROTHERS LTD [1990] LPELR· 1522(SC)</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">; </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibit AA3 is not only inadmissible in law, it is worthless and cannot be attached with any weight or probative value. He cited the case of <b>Nigeria Bank for Commerce & Industry v Ogbemi &Anor [2012] LPELR Page 43 paras B-F. </b>He urged the court to so hold.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%"> </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-font-width:106%">The alleged defendant's staff hand book - Exhibit AA2</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:107%">Counsel contended that the claimant relied on </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%">(Exhibit AA2) as the defendant’s purported handbook regulating his contract of employment with the defendant. The copy tendered by the Claimant was signed and dated specifically after the commencement of this suit as against the photocopy of the same document which was frontloaded was not signed and dated. He submitted that the court ought not to have admitted the document in view of the material alterations and difference between what was frontloaded and what was tendered in evidence. Continuing he posited that assuming without conceding that Exhibit AA2 was properly admitted the said exhibit has no value in law as it is not worth more than a mere piece of paper in that the court cannot base any of its decision with regards to the disputed facts on the reasons that;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%">a.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%">That the purported handbook was not signed until after the commencement of this suit;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%">b.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%">The said handbook was never approved by the defendant’s board of directors;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%">c.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%">The handbook was not incorporated in the claimant contract of employment;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%">d.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%">The maker of the handbook CW2 without the approval of the board of directors, CW2 is a great beneficiary from the said handbook who based his claims of over N100,000,000 on the hand book in a suit before this court (Suit No NICN/LA/335/2013- Mr. Chester Onyemaechi Ukandu v Mainstreet Bnak Registrars Limited);<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%">e.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%">The copy of the handbook frontloaded is different from the handbook tendered in evidence;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l8 level1 lfo5"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-font-width:106%">f.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%">The claimant did not sign the purported handbook. To this he cited the cases of <b>Aregbesola & Ors v Oyinlola & Ors [2010] LPEL-3805; Aiki v Idowu [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt.984) 50 CA</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%">Counsel submitted that having regard to the foregoing that the alleged handbook is irrelevant to the determination of the claims of the claimant in this case as it lacks credibility and no weight or probative value can be attached to same. He urged the court to so hold and expunge from the record, the purported staff handbook exhibit AA2 tendered by the claimant and admitted in court as same is inadmissible. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%"> </span></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">Photocopy of the internal mail dated 28/07/11 - EXHIBIT AA10<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that the internal mail of 28<sup>th</sup> July, 2011 (Exhibit AA10) is inadmissible in evidence because it is a photocopy, no proper foundation was laid, it is irrelevant as same did not emanate from the defendant and it was wrong to have admitted the secondary copy of the document without laying proper foundation. He stated that the claimant must meet the requirements of section 87 and 89 of the Evidence Act, 2011 before tendering Exhibit AA10. He cited the case of <b>Isitor v. Fakarode [2008] 1 NWLR (PT. 1069) 602 AT P. 626, Para. f where per Jega, JCA</b> held that<b>:-"What is required for the purpose of laying proper foundation for the admission of secondary evidence is an explanation to the satisfaction of the court to enable the admissibility of the secondary evidence and not a justificationâ€. </b>He submitted that Exhibit AA10 having been wrongly admitted, should be expunged from the court’s record. Counsel posited that</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> Exhibit AA10 only surfaced in the Claimant's reply to the Statement of Defence thereby raising the presumption that it has been concocted during the pendency and for the purpose of this suit. Also, the alleged internal mail is grossly inconsistent in that the mail is dated and allegedly issued on July 28, 2011, but paragraph 3 of the body of the mail states that<b>-"Consequently, adequate provision has been made in the books of the company for the financial ending December 31<sup>st</sup>, 2012<u>,</u> and cash backup for the terminal benefits placed in a deposit account dedicated for the payment of staff terminal benefit",</b> which is impossible. He also posited that the claimant pleaded relied and centered his claim on the Financial Statement contained in the Annual reports for the year ended 2011, the internal mail dated 28<sup>th</sup> July, 2011 - Exhibit AA10 referred to the books of the Company for the financial year ending December, 31<sup>st</sup>,2012. Therefore, the Claimant cannot by his pleadings or written address amend, rewrite or differ the clear wordings of Exhibit AA10, to read the Defendant's Annual Return or Financial Statement for the year ended 2011 when the Internal mail dated 28th July, 2011 - Exhibit AA10 never said so but referred to the Financial Statement for the year ended 2012. He cited in support the Supreme Court in the case of <b>N.I.D.B V. OLALOMI INDUSTRIES LTD [2002] 5 NWLR [PART 761] PAGE 532 RATIO 7; </b>where the court held that a document speaks for itself. Oral testimony is inadmissible to vary, add to or take away from the content of a document. Exhibit AA10 therefore speaks for itself. He stated that claimant having not proved that his appointment was terminated on the basis of the internal mail, the said exhibit is irrelevant and can also not be accorded any probative value in view of its inconsistencies. He urged the court to discountenance the internal mail exhibit AA10.<o:p></o:p></span></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"> </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">Copy of the defendant's annual return for the year ended December, 2011 Exhibit AA8<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel submitted that exhibit AA8 ought not to be admitted in evidence because it is not relevant he cited section 1 Evidence Act, 2011 and the case of <b>Abubakar v Chuks [2007] 18 NWLR (Pt.1066) 386 p @402 paras E-G. </b>He posited that the Defendant's Annual Returns for the financial year Ended 2011 is totally irrelevant to the determination of the Claims of the Claimant in this matter which is for this Court to determine whether the Defendant is in breach of the contract of employment it had with the Claimant and whether the Defendant owes the Claimant his terminal benefits. That it is trite law that a Court cannot look at any other document in determining the contract of agreement between parties. He submitted also that the financial statement is not a forum for the approval of employee’s terminal benefits as it represents accounts to be presented to the members in a general meetings for purpose of accountability and assurance that the company is doing well and also that the claimant is only entitled to claim from his agreement , he cannot litigate over policy or decision taken by the management or board of directors for his benefits unless he can link such decisions to his personal contract. He cited the case of <b>Ebhota v P.I&P.D. CO [2005] 15 NWLR (PT 948) 266 (SC). </b> He urged the court to hold that the claimant cannot derive any benefit from the financial statement 2011.<o:p></o:p></span></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"> </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">Argument on admissibility and or Weight to be Attached to defendant’s contested documents <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:112%">Counsel submitted that </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">the Defendant tendered and relied on 15 documents which were all admitted and marked Exhibits AO1-AO13, OK1 and Exhibits CU1- CU2. He stated that there are three main criteria governing admissibility of a document in evidence which are; whether the facts relating to the document have been pleaded; whether it is relevant; and whether it is admissible in law. He posited that the documents tendered by the Defendant are pleaded, relevant and are admissible in law and urged the Court to attach probative value to them. <o:p></o:p></span></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"> </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">Copies of the Defendant Transfer Instruction Letter to its Bank Dated 1<sup>st</sup> of July, 2013 and 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2013 (Exhibits AO1 & AO2) and CTC of the Claimant’s Statement of Account from 1<sup>st</sup> June, 2013 to 31<sup>st</sup> May, 2015 (Exhibit OC1).<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel submitted that these documents were duly pleaded and they are relevant to prove payment of salary in lieu of notice to the claimant as well as ex-gratia payments. He stated that the relevancy determines admissibility in law and since the documents deal with the subject matter of the suit, they are both admissible. Continuing counsel submitted in the instant case, there is no dispute or controversy as to the authenticity or even the issuance of the document, also the payments to which the documents were meant to prove have been admitted by the claimant under cross examination where he confirmed that the sum of N10, 846.00 which is his basic salary was credited to his account on the 1<sup>st</sup> July, 2012 and he has spent same. He also admitted receipt of the ex-gratia payments in his pleadings. He urged the court to hold that the three documents exhibits AO1 AO2 & OC1 were duly and rightly admitted based on the evidential foundation laid by the defendant and the fact that it is relevant, pleaded and its contents already admitted by the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></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"> </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">Mr. Chester Ukandu was not a Subpoenaed Witness and his Testimony must be Expunged from the Records.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is counsel’s submission that CW2 was not a subpoenaed witness before this court. He was a willing whom the claimant deliberately refused to frontload his written statement on oath in line with the rules of this court, thus depriving the defendant the opportunity to adequately prepare ahead against his testimony. He stated that a denial of this opportunity, as the claimant has done in this case, amounts to a denial of the defendant’s constitutional right to fair hearing before and impartial arbiter. He cited the case of <b>Buhari&Ors v Hardy Smart Nig Ltd &Anor [2009] LPELR 8362 (CA). </b>He urged the court to hold that the entire testimony of Mr. Chester O. Ukandu should be discountenanced and expunged from the records of the court. <o:p></o:p></span></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"> </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">Mr Chester O. Ukandu Lied Severally and Repeatedly Under Oath<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel posited that Mr.Ukandu stated, under oath stating in one breadth that the number of employees of the defendant between July, 2011 when he issued the internal mail Exhibit IB9 was 44, including himself, and in another breadth stating that the number of staff is 45 including himself. This establishes two diametrically incompatible statements made by Mr. Ukandu.<o:p></o:p></span></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"> </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">Mr. Chester Ukandu is an unreliable witness who made 19 material inconsistencies in his sworn written statements and oral testimonies <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:108%">Counsel argued that i</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">t is the law that where a witness gives contradictory evidence either by way of oral testimony or by way of written statements, the Court would treat same as unreliable and same would go to no issue. He cited the case of <b>M. S. C. Ezemba v. S. O. Ibeneme&anor. [2004] LPELR- 1205[SC], also reported in [2004] 14 NWLR [PART 894] 617</b>, where the Supreme Court, <b>per Edozie, J.S.C at Page 22, paragraphs G- A:-"No witness who has given on oath to material of inconsistent evidence is </b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">entitled to the honour of credibility. Such a witness does not deserve to be treated as a truthful witness." Odulami v. The Nigerian Navy [2013] LPELR-20701 [SC].</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Counsel submitted that the subpoenaed witness (CW2) is not a witness of truth and his evidence in this suit are unreliable and should be taken with a pinch of salt having regard to the fact that they are incredible and cloaked with inconsistencies. He posited that Mr. Ukandu gave contradictory and inconsistent testimonies in his pleadings, witness statement on oath, and under cross examination. During trial, upon the cross-examination of Mr. Chester Ukandu in the following cases, (Suit No: </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NICN/LA/335/2013<i>)-</i><b>Chester </b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:106%;mso-bidi-language:HE">Ukandu v. MBRL; </span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE;mso-bidi-font-style:italic">NICN/LA/421/2013<i>, </i></span></b><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:105%">Mrs. KehindeAbimbola v. MBRL; NICN/LAL514/2013, Ekpudi Chioma v. MBRL</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">. CW2 when cross examined on the issues of whether the defendant is a subsidiary of the Mainstreet Bank Limited; on his retirement or terminal benefits; whether the handbook was approved by the board; W</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">hether the financial statement forms part of the contract of employment between the parties Whether financial statements are prepared in arrears was contradictory and incoherent in his responses for all issues addressed. Counsel urged the court to declare CW2 as an interested party and not worth the credit of a subpoenaed witness. <o:p></o:p></span></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-font-width:105%">On whether the handbook was approved by the board<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">Counsel submitted that CW2 stated that the handbook was approved by its board in its meetings of 13/09/06 and he even tendered a letter of appointment dated 20/09/06 which referred to the handbook, yet in his testimonies he said the handbook was a loose sheets which was printed into a handbook sometimes in April 2008 in his own case on the 20<sup>th</sup> of May, 2014. Continuing counsel submitted that in suit <b>No NICN/LA/421/2013 between Inowan Benson v Mainstreet Bank Registrars ltd</b> CW2 testified that some part of the handbook were approved by the Board while some other parts were approved by the management. That CW2 further stated that the company printed the handbook when he was the MD at about May 2008. He stated that CW2 in the same suit when asked on whether the staff handbook was approved posited that ;<o:p></o:p></span></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-font-width:105%">“I did not tell the claimant that the handbook was approved at the meeting but I told him the provisions of the terminal benefits were approved at that meeting. The Board approved the provisions as regards benefits; the board did not need to give approval to issue the handbook. What I said in Exhibit 002 was that some policies were approved by the board and some by the management. Some part of the handbook were approved by the board e,g clause 4.7, 3.14, 3.18 while some were approved by the management…â€<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">He urged the court to 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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On issue one, Counsel submitted that in a contract of employment which is purely a master-servant relationship, the employer can terminate the service of the employee at any time by giving the appropriate length of notice required in the contract, or by giving such length of notice deemed by the court to be reasonable where the contract does not expressly provide for length of notice. He cited the case of <b>Imoloame v WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303</b>. He posited that a claimant claiming for wrongful termination, has the burden of proving the manner in which the contract was breached by the termination of the contract and this he has to do by placing before the court; (a) the terms of the contract of employment and (b) to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. He cited the case of <b>Angel Spining& Dyeing Ltd v Ajah [200] 13 NWLR (Pt. 685) Page 532.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">He submitted that Exhibit AA1 is the letter of offer of employment and by virtue of Exhibit AA4, claimant’s letter of confirmation it can be implied that the requirement of 30 days' notice from either party to terminate the contract during probation remains valid even after confirmation of the claimant's appointment. The defendant after termination of the claimant’s employment paid the sum of N10,844.00representing his one month basic salary in lieu of notice on July, 1<sup>st</sup>,2013 which he admitted to under oath. Counsel also submitted that the claimant was paid the sum of N139,686.75ex-gratia as disengagement benefit on 20<sup>th</sup> August 2012 in addition to the sum of N10,844.00 earlier paid him in lieu of notice making a total sum of N154,976.45 paid and received by the Claimant. <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">Counsel urged the court to resolve issue in favour of the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On issue two, counsel argued that the claimant claims to be entitled to be paid the sum of N2,738,729.28 less the ex-gratia sum of N139,686.75 paid by the Defendant on 20<sup>th</sup> August, 2013 and he relied on Exhibit AA2, the purported staff hand book of the defendant and on the evidence of the subpoenaed witness Mr. Chester Ukandu, an erstwhile Managing Director of the defendant .<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:110%"> <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; mso-font-width:110%">Counsel stated that the claimant pleaded that the handbook was approved</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> in a meeting of 13th September, 2006. However when asked under cross examination whether he was at the meeting, he confirmed he was not and that he was told it was approved. Therefore this evidence is unreliable, inadmissible, a hearsay evidence and it is trite that hearsay evidence are not to be given any worth or consideration by the court but to be expunged. He cited the case of <b>IWEKA v. FRN [2010] LPELR-4344(CA), </b>where the Court of Appeal<b>, Per ADAMU</b> held that<b>:Â"hearsay evidence" which is also not a direct evidence is defined as a specie of testimony given by a witness who relates not what he knows personally but what others have told him or what he has heard said by others. </b>Counsel stated that what was approved in the meeting of 13/09/2006is the salary structure and other benefits for staff specified and no handbook whatsoever was approved in the meeting of 13<sup>th</sup> September, 2006 as evinced by the Minutes (Exhibit AO5). He further stated that the letter of employment is the foundation on which any employee can lay claim that a handbook or any document purporting to form part of a contract of employment to be enforceable against an employer, such document must be specifically incorporated by reference to the letter of employment, therefore, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">a handbook falls into the same categories of contract like a "collective agreement" between a body of employees and an employer or employers and for such agreement to be binding it must be incorporated or embodied in the contract of service between the parties.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> He cited </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">the case of <b>ABALOGU V. S.P.D.C. LTD. [2003] 13 NWLR (PT.837)309.</b> That </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">since the handbook was not approved and or incorporated into the Claimant's employment this renders same unenforceable and non-binding. Counsel urged the court to hold that Exhibit AA2 (the alleged defendant's staff handbook), and the internal mail does not constitute any binding contract or any conditions of service between the Claimant and the Defendant.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel submitted that by Exhibit AA5 (the termination letter) it is clear that the claimant’s employment was terminated on the basis of services no longer required and not on redundancy . he stated that the document Exhibit AA5 speaks for itself hence no document will be allowed to vary the content. He cited in support the case of<b>Anmode & anor v. Dino &ors[2008] LPELR-8405(CA)</b> where the Court of Appeal per Lokulo-Sodipe J.C.A held that:-<b>“The law is that where a document is clear, the Operative words in it are to be given their simple and ordinary grammatical meaning. One is not to read into the document what is not there. A document duly pleaded and tendered once admitted is the best evidence of its content and therefore speaks for itself."</b>He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></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"> </span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Continuing he submitted that going by the content of the internal mail<b>, </b>Exhibit AA10 relied upon by the claimant, the 4th paragraph of the alleged internal memo states as follows<b>:-"When it becomes necessary and the company (the Defendant) decides to disengage Staff during the period of divestment process, such disengagement will be treated as voluntary redundancy and their terminal benefit paid as computed according the termination of any employees' appointment will be considered as voluntary redundancy and their terminal benefit paid as computed according."</b> From the fact as seen there was no divestment whatsoever of Mainstreet Bank limited from the Defendant's company as alleged in exhibit AA10 such that would warrant the termination of 44 staff at least during all the material times in this suit ending 1<sup>st</sup>July, 2013. It is also not in evidence that 44 staff of the company were disengaged rather it is in evidence that the Defendant is still a going concern owned principally by Mainstreet Bank limited at all material times. Thus the claimant’s claim is inconsistent and not entitled to both claims at a time. Counsel urged the court to so hold.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:105%">Counsel prays to the court to resolve these issues in favour of the defendant and dismiss the claim of the claimant with a huge substantial cost.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">The claimant on the 14<sup>th</sup>of December, 2016 filed his Written Address wherein he raised five issues for the court’s determination;</span><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="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">i.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the claimant was employed by the defendant under certain terms of employment.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l3 level1 lfo6"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">ii.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Whether the terms in the Minutes of 13/9/2006 and the Hand Book are binding on the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> iv Whether the claimant's employment was wrongfully terminated.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;text-indent:36.0pt;line-height: 115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif">v. Whether the claimant is entitled to his claim. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">vi Whether the one month salary underpayment made in July 2013 amounted to a waiver on the part of the claimant to claim against the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On issue one, counsel submitted that claimant vide paragraphs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of his statement of claim pleaded that he was employed by the defendant and gave evidence to that effect vide exhibit AA2 the staff handbook was used in dealing with staff issues whilst in the employment of the defendant and this was very much corroborated by CW2. Counsel posited that the claimant to prove the existence of the terms of employment pleaded the defendant’s minutes of 13/9/2006 and the defendants hand book both of which were tendered and admitted by this Court. The defendant denied the existence of the minutes of 13/9/2006, exhibit AA3 and the existence of the handbook exhibit AA2 in their pleadings statement on oath. They eventually brought out the pasted version of the minutes and tried to sway on the court to accept it as the original document. The alleged original document bears;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(a)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">altered dated from "2006" to "2007" <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:72.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -36.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l7 level1 lfo7"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman"">(b)<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">the same signature as that on the claimant's frontloaded copy. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel in proof that the minutes of the defendant on the 13/9/2006 exhibit AA3 is the authentic minutes of the defendant's board proceedings, submitted that Exhibit AA3 at page 8 paragraph 8.01 shows that the ex-managing director, CW2 presented a remuneration package to the board of directors of the defendant on the 13<sup>th</sup> day of September 2006 which was approved at paragraph 8.05 by the board of directors and signed by the chairman of the board. Counsel stated that there is no attachment up to page 10 where the chairman signed. That the attachment can only be found after page 10 and page 8 paragraph 8.02 states that the analysis of the proposed staff structure is attached to the minutes…… he submitted thus that what is contained between pages 1 and 10 of exhibit AA3 could not have been attached to it as pages 1-10 form the integral part of the minutes itself. He urged the court to so hold. Continuing counsel submitted that defence counsel contends that there are inconsistencies in the evidence of CW1 and CW2 with regards to approval of the Board of Director minutes of the 13/09/06 or that the staff strength was 44 and not 45. It is counsel position that CW2 said that staff strength fluctuated between 44 and 45. He stated that with regards to contradiction it is the law that not all contradictions results in rejection of the evidence of a witness, it is only those that are material and result in miscarriage of justice that would warrant such a rejection of evidence. He cited in support the case of <b>Wachukwu v Owunwanne [2011] 5 (pt. 11) MJSC 87 @ 117Paras B. </b>He urged the court to discountenance the defence submission.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is claimant’s argument with regards to CW2 not being a subpoenaed witness as posited by the defendant that the claimant was constrained to subpoena CW2 as a result of the defendant’s denial of the existence of the documents pleaded by the claimant vide the defendant’s oath dated 4<sup>th</sup> April, 2014 and its statement of defence. He stated that the claimant filed the writ of subpoena and paid for service and invited the CW2 on the assumption that the writ of subpoena had been served by the court. He submitted that the claimant having paid for service had done his own part and the failure of the court to do its part should not be visited on the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Continuing counsel submitted that with regards to exhibit AA2 the defendant handbook was at all times material to the affairs relating his contract of employment between him and the defendant. CW2 testified that he signed exhibit AA10 wherein the hand book was relied upon by the defendant and that the hand book was used by the defendant up till the time he was sacked from the defendant's employment. He stated that the defendant in its financial statement (exhibit AA8) for the year ended December 31, 2011, signed by the chairman of the board of the defendant and its managing director, approved at the Annual General Meeting for the year ended December 31, 2011 and filed by the defendant's Company Secretary, DW1, at the Corporate Affairs Commission at Note 15 (a) page 22 thereof relied on the same hand book which states inter alia <b>"Using the provisions of the staff hand book, the termination benefit was computed for 44 employees of the company as at year end using the following basis: total emolument multiplied by number of year(s) which the employee has served the company to a maximum of two 2 years"<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">That the defendant having referred to exhibit AA2 in exhibits AA8 and AA10 and placed reliance on exhibit AA2 is estopped from denying exhibit AA2 and the terms contained therein. Counsel urged the court to hold that by virtue of the testimony of CW1 and CW2, exhibits AA8 and AA10, that the defendant is bound by the terms in exhibits AA2 and AA3.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">On issue two, counsel submitted that the defendant in its board meeting of 13/9/2006 approved terms of employment for its staff. CW2 gave evidence that the board of the defendant on 13/9/2006approved some terms of employment and that the terms were incorporated in exhibit AA3 and given to members of the defendant's staff, including the claimant. CW2 was the managing director of the defendant company, a board member and the then head of the defendant's management staff. He submitted that where the managing director and his management staff acted intra vires the defendant company, the defendant is bound thereby. CW2 testified that exhibit AA3 was the minutes of the defendant's board meeting held on 13/9/2006. The claimant in dealing with the defendant relied and believed in the existence and authenticity of exhibits AA2 and AA3. Reliance on the exhibits by the claimant was not misplaced as the documents were made available to the claimant by the board and management of the defendant company headed by a board member, the ex-managing director of the defendant. He urged the court to so hold.</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue three, counsel submitted that claimant's employment was terminated vide a letter dated 28/6/2013 (Exhibit AA5). That by virtue of paragraph 2 of Exhibit AA5 it states that “In accordance with your terms of engagement, you are entitled to receive (one) month basic salary in lieu of notice". However, the defendant on the 1<sup>st</sup> of July 2013 unilaterally and without agreement with the claimant paid his basic salary in the sum of N10,846 into his salary account because it had the claimant’s account details whilst in employment with it and saying that the payment represented the claimant's basic salary in lieu of notice. He cited the case of <b>MOROHUNFOLA V KWARA TECH [1986] 6 CA (PT 11) 187 @ 205 TO 206; Chukwuma v SPDC [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512</b><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel posits that the payment of the basic salary by the defendant in July 2013 instead of 28/6/2013 amounted to a breach of the terms of the claimant's employment which makes the termination of the employment on 28/6/2013wrongful and contrary to clause 3.8 of exhibit AA2 which states that a management staff should be paid three months salary in lieu of notice and one month salary in case of other staff. He urged the court to so hold.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><u><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-font-width:106%"> </span></u></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue four, counsel submitted that having posited earlier that his disengagement from the defendant is wrongful he is thus entitled to his claims for one month salary in lieu of notice in the sum of N114,113.72 as Exhibit AA2, which is the defendant's staff hand book in clause 3.18 provides that a management staff is entitled to one (1) month notice in writing or one (1) month's salary in lieu of notice. It is counsel’s position that the claimant is entitled to his terminal benefits in the sum of N2,738,729.28 as clause 3.18 of exhibit AA2 provides that " where the company deems it necessary for any reason whatsoever to layoff an employee the affected employee shall be paid severance package as follows: total emolument multiplied by number of year(s) with which the employee has serve the company up to a maximum of two (2) years.". Thus he is entitled to the claim as his employment was terminated wrongfully. He urged the court to 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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">On issue five, counsel submitted that the act of the defendant to pay his salary </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">in lieu in July some two (2) weeks after the claimant had been laid off was a clear breach of the claimant's contract of employment. He posited that the defendant in August, 2013 paid into his account exgratia payment. He also stated that he informed his counsel who wrote to the defendant on his behalf on the 21<sup>st</sup> of August, 2013 asking them to either recall the payments or take them as part payment. That it is the law that a waiver can only apply where a lesser sum is paid and accepted by the claimant. In this case, the claimant was not paid his one month salary in lieu of notice as per exhibit AA3 and he did not accept the basic salary paid as the claimant advised the defendant to recall the payments or take them as part payment of his entitlement. Therefore the payment was not based on the agreement of parties and the defence counsel's submission in its final Written Address has no application to the claimant. The claimant has not waived his right to recover the balance due from the defendant. Counsel urged the court to enter judgment in his favour.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The defendant on the 14<sup>th</sup> February, 2017 filed its reply on point of law wherein it responded to the new issues as contained in the claimant’s written address using the claimant’s issues for determination. It is counsel’s argument that it is not in dispute whether or not the claimant had terms of employment rather the controversy is what constitutes the terms of employment and how where were they breached that the claimant could not prove. Continuing counsel argued that claimant’s reliance on the purported hand book, the minutes of the meeting dated 13/09/06 and financial statement of the year ended 2011 cannot support his claims as those documents were not referred to in his letter of employment dated 4/1/2008. He cited the case of <b>Adams O. Idufeko v Pfizer Products Limited &Anor [2014] LPELR-22999(SC). </b>Continuing and counsel, citing the case of recent case of <b>Securities and Exchange Commission v Abilo Uboboso with Appeal No CA/A/388/2013</b> decided on the 21/12/2016 contended that the Evidence Act 2011, is binding on the National Industrial Court and the court cannot rely on section 12 of the NIC Act, 2006 to avoid and or refuse to follow the provisions of the evidence act. Thus all documents the court admitted contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act are inadmissible and must be expunged by the court. He urged the court to so hold.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is counsel’s contention that claimant failed to join issues on the defendant’s argument in its final written address when it argued that the second witness is not a subpoenaed witness and it also haphazardly addressed the issues raised that CW2 lied severally under oath. He submitted that the claimant having failed to adequately address those issues is deemed to have admitted and conceded these points and the court must expunge the evidence of CW2 from its records in determining the suit. He cited the case of <b>Adelaja &Ors v Alalade&Anor [199] LPELR-109 (SC) P17 Para G; Sifax (Nig) ltd v Migfo (Nig) ltd [2016] 7 NWLR (PT 1510) p. 53.<o:p></o:p></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">It is counsel’s submission that the claimant did not refute any of it pleadings where defendant as its relates to the board of directors of the defendant did not and had never approved or adopted any staff handbook to regulate it employment relationship; That the financial statement is not part of the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant and the fund accrued in it were not earmarked for the payment of terminal benefits of the claimant. That the internal mail dated 28/7/2011 did not emanate from the defendant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Counsel contended with regards to whether or not the payment and acceptance and payment of his basic salary amounted to a waiver and mutual determination of claimant’s contract of employment that the claimant having received and accepted the payment of his basic salary cannot be heard to complain about wrongful termination of his employment. He cited the case of <b>B.A Morohunfola v Kwara Tech College of Technology [1990] LPELR-1912 (SC) P 35 Para A-G</b>.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">With regards to the inconsistencies of Chester Ukandu CW2, it is counsel’s submission that where a particular witness gives different evidence on the same facts, such a witness is not a witness of truth. He contended that the evidence of CW2 should not be believed as they are based on inconsistencies contrary to section 83 (3) of the Evidence Act, 2011. He urged the court to consider his submissions on the inconsistencies in CW2 testimonies and on his personal interest and rule in defendant’s favour. He also urged the court to dismiss claimant’s unproven claims in entirety. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">I have carefully considered all the facts before the Court, including the testimonies of all the witnesses on record as well as documents they tendered on record; I have equally read the final written addresses of both learned counsel including the statutory and case law authorities cited, it is in my respectful and firm view that the issues that need to be determined to enable the Court to reach a just decision are whether or not the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful and if the answer to this is in the affirmative, is he entitled to his claims. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is defence counsel argument in his reply on point of law and citing</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%; font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> the recent case of <b>Securities and Exchange Commission v Abilo Uboboso with Appeal No CA/A/388/2013</b> decided on the 21/12/2016 contended that the Evidence Act 2011, is binding on the National Industrial Court and the court cannot rely on Section 12 of the NIC Act, 2006 to avoid and or refuse to follow the provisions of the Evidence Act. Thus all documents the court admitted contrary to the provisions of the Evidence Act are inadmissible and must be expunged by the court. The argument of counsel in this regard is a misconception of the NICA Act as well as the decision of the appeal court in the case cited supra, I say so in view of the fact that a keen perusal of Section 12 of the NICA seeks not to depart from the provisions of the Evidence Act, this court by Section 12(2)(b) of NIC Act court is bound by the provisions of the Evidence Act. However the only ground upon which it may depart there from is only in the overall interest of justice where the document is relevant to the facts in issue, where it was pleaded and the objection is not that the document has not been certified as required in respect of public documents. The court in Abilo case considered the admissibility or otherwise of an un certified public document as opposed to the documents referred to by defencce counsel in this case. None of the documents admitted in this instance case is a public document that requires certification. And this court in admitting all the documents in this case including those tendered by the defendant and admitted considered the overall interest of justice of this case to both parties vis a vis the provisions of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is noteworthy that the legality or otherwise of Section 12(2)(b) is being challenged by counsel to the defendant in this case, in another case before the apex court seeking for a verdict. It is also in this vein that I chose not to make pronouncement on the provision of NIC Act 2006. Except to state most importantly as regards this case that the intent of the law makers of the Act is to ensure a speedy dispensation of justice by this court and not to dwell on undue delay and tactics/technicalities employed by both counsel and litigants to forestall the cause of justice. It is important to state also that in the realm of labour law and practice all over the world, speed in adjudicating labour disputes is germane. As oppose to other forms of disputes, e.g. land disputes, the interest of an employee in ventilating his grievances in court against his employer is the one that is an interest in personam, not one that is in rem or in perpetuity. All that is paramount to an employee in coming to court is to know if his termination is wrongful or not. The result of which either way will help him to re order his life and go on. It is in the light of this coupled with the subject matter of disputes before this court that the National Assembly in its wisdom enacted Section 12(2)(b) of NIC Act 2006, which law is yet to be repealed by the Evidence Act 2011, which came into force even way beyond 2006 when Section 12(2)(b) of NIC Act came into force. It is notorious that Section 12(2)(b) is yet to be repealed or amended, it still forms part of the NIC Act 2006. A cursory look at exhibits that is the staff Hand book, Minutes of meeting of 13/9/06, the financial statement of the defendant for year 2011 and the internal memo dated 28/7/11, exhibits AA2, AA3, AA8 and AA10 show that the documents are all relevant, proper foundation were laid by both CW1 and CW2 before they tendered them and since relevancy is the precursor to admissibility and the court in order not to fall prey to the delay gimmicks/technicalities of defence counsel admitted all documents as evidence in this suit as held on record for being relevant to the facts in issue. As the apex court has held severally that the era of technicalities are dead buried and rotten away, hence justice cannot be subsumed on the platter of technicalities whose mission is to truncate/kill substantial justice. Accordingly, all the documents already admitted on record remains admitted and weight is to be attached to each of them. 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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-font-weight:bold">It is appropriate here to consider some preliminary issues raised by the defendant as regards the admissibility or otherwise of certain documents, that is the staff Hand book, Minutes of meeting of 13/9/06, the financial statement of the defendant for year 2011 and the internal memo dated 28/7/11, they are all exhibits AA2,AA3, AA8 and AA10. It is notable that these objections were raised in all the sister cases already decided upon by this Court, i.e. in <b>Mr</b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">. Chester Onyemaechi Ukandu v Mainstreet Bank Registrars Limited Unreported suit no NICN/LA/335/2013 Delivered on 19<sup>th</sup> of May, 2015; Mrs Kehinde Abimbola v Mainstreet Bank Registrars Limited unreported suit no NICN/LA/517/2013 delivered on 27<sup>th</sup> of May, 2015; Awe Olugbenga v. Mainstreet Registrars ltd, suit no. NIC/LA/515/2013, a judgment Delivered on 30/9/15 and Godspower Imonikhe v. Mainstreet Registrars ltd, Suit no. NICN/LA/518/2013, a judgment delivered on 12/07/16. Where this court held in Ukandu's case thus-<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-bidi-language:HE"> ''</span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">MINUTES OF 13TH SEPTEMBER 2006. </span></b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">The learned defence counsel posited that the claimant purportedly gave it a notice to produce the original of the minutes of meeting of the defendant of 13th September, 2006 and that the defendant in turn produced and tendered its original minutes book in Court, containing the minutes of meeting of the 13th September, 2006, that inspite of this the claimant still tendered the loose sheets photocopy purported minutes of that day. The defence went on to posit that once the defendant or the person in possession of the document for which <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">notice to produce was given brings the document to Court, that notice has lapsed. Cited in support is Section 89(a) of the Evidence Act 2011. Also in support was the case of AINOKO V. YUNUSA & ORS [2008] LPELR. 3663, Counsel quoted Adekeye JCA as she then was; for saying that the main purpose of giving a notice to produce is to enable the person serving the notice adduce secondary evidence of the document in question. To the defence, when the original is produced in Court, the party issuing the notice to produce can no longer tender the photocopy of same. Learned defence counsel urged the Court to hold that the defendant original minutes of 13th September, 2006 is admissible and there is no need for the copy tendered by the claimant. The Learned claimant's counsel in his submission placed reliance on his submissions on all documents objected to by the defendant during trial, including the minute and continued that both parties have argued their respective position on this issues at the trial, and were only urged by the Court to address it as to weight in their final written addresses. <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Let me state from the onset that it is correct that the defendant objected to the admissibility or otherwise of the minutes of meeting of 13th September, 2006, including other documents. The claimant argued and made submissions in support of the tendering and admissibility of same and the Court did admit the documents, but ordered parties to address it as to weight in their final written address. It is also on record that the claimant filed and served a notice to produce original copy of certain documents on 6th November, 2013, one of which is the minutes of meeting of 13th September, 2006 ( hereafter called the Minute), instead of producing original copy of the minute, the defendant however, deposed to an affidavit on 4th April, 2014 denying the existence of the minute of 13th September 2006. At the trial of this case on 20th May 2014, the claimant tendered the photocopy having first given notice to the defendant to produce the original, but failed to so produce.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">It was admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit CU9 whilst on 21st of May, 2014, the defendant produced a hard copy higher education book, it called its minutes book. The defendant showed the minute to CW, who stated that the annexure to the Minute has been removed by the defendant and thus denied it. The Court admitted it and marked it as exhibit CU21, the Court then urged parties to address it as to weight to attach to same. I carefully considered first the minute tendered by the claimant and equally compared it with the one later tendered through CW by the defendant. i.e. exhibit CU 9 and CU 21 respectively. Exhibit CU9 tendered by the claimant is a photocopy consisting of 10 pages, a board paper and appendix (i) and (ii); whilst exhibit CU 21 tendered by the defendant is 10 pages, without any board paper or appendix (i) and (ii). The defendant tendered what it called a minute book, which according to the defendant consists of all minutes of meetings of the defendant. Would it be right to say as argued by the defendant that exhibit CU9 is not the minute of the board of Directors' of the defendant and that same has extraneous documents which makes it inadmissible.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;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; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-language:EN-GB">Now, the Black's Law Dictionary 9th Edition page 1089, defines, minutes of an organization to include a record of all official actions taken, the presiding officer, the presence of a quorum and information showing that the meeting was duly called and thus legal. The other contents of the minutes will depend upon the degree of detail desired.... The minutes should be an official record of actions taken by the organization. While ''minute book'' is defined to mean a record of the subject discussed and actions taken at a corporate directors' or shareholders' meeting''. The apex Court in </span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">WAHAB AIGBOTOSHO SIJUOLA OLANREWAJU V. THE GOV., OYO STATE & 6 ORS. [1992] 9 NWLR (PT. 265) 335 AT 366 where it was decided that oral evidence of what transpired in a meeting could be given in evidence even though there was a recorded minutes of the meeting. The decision of the Court in Olanrewaju's case was followed in EZEMBA V. IBENEME[2004] 14 NWLR( PT 894) AT PG. 651-652,660. By the decision of apex Court in these cases coupled with the meaning as ascribe to it in the Black's law dictionary, 9th edition, a minute of meeting basically means record of all official actions taken, and issues discussed in a meeting. The apex Court went ahead to hold in IBENEME'S CASE that oral evidence of what transpired in a meeting could be given in evidence even though the minute of meeting is tendered. In the instance case, both the claimant and the defendant tendered the minute, however, the defendant's contention is that the minute tendered by the claimant is unknown to it in view of the annexure. Now, placing reliance on both the definition of a minute given by the Black's Law Dictionary and the case law authorities cited above, the evidence of CW, i.e. the claimant in this case, who was present at the meeting corroborates the information and actions taken as recorded in the minute including the annexure which gives credence to the actions taken as contained in pages 1-10 of the minute. The Court finds the attitude of the defendant suspicious in view of the fact that defendant denied the existence of the minute in an affidavit it filed in response to a notice to produce the minute of meeting in question, and later appeared with a minute of meeting in its minutes book, shows that the defendant have something to hide. It equally implies that the document, i.e. the minute is not beneficial to them , hence, the defendant lied on oath to the Court which is in law perjury. In fact my worry becomes more heightened when on a closer look at the minutes book, which allegedly contained the minute looks new and does not look like a minute book kept by the company since 2006 or before then. It is consequent upon all the above that I find that exhibit CU9 having been tendered by the claimant who had already given notice to produce to the defendant to produce the original copy but failed to so do, thereby leaving him with no other option than to tender the photocopy in his possession as one of the persons in attendance at the meeting of that day, by virtue of Section 89(a ) of the Evidence Act 2011, is admissible and thus suffices as the evidence of what transpired at the meeting of 13/9/06. Accordingly, I hold that exhibit CU9 was not wrongly admitted and thus forms part of the record of this Court. I hereby set aside the minute later tendered by the defendant and thus discountenanced with. I so hold.''<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></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"> <o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">STAFF HANDBOOK.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">As regards the defendant's employees' handbook, both parties arguments on same at trial is adopted. At the risk of repetition, the defendant's contention is that the handbook i.e. exhibit CU5 was fabricated and prepared by the claimant without the approval of the defendant's board of directors and thus amounts to claimant's making agreement for himself. Employees' handbook contains terms and conditions of service of employees. 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></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> <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;mso-bidi-language:HE">This Court in Awe Olugbenga' Case supra, held as in the other sister cases as regards the </span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">THE INTERNAL MAIL thus-<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></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">''It is the contention of claimant that the defendant vide the internal mail dated 28/7/2011 duly informed its staff including him that he could be laid off under clause 3.18 of the staff handbook and provision for his terminal benefits had already been made in the books of the company, in view of the reinvestment policy of the banking sector and he thus places reliance on same as a succor in case of termination as envisaged by the defendant . The defendant on the other hand contended that the mail relied upon by the claimant did not emanate from it and more over it is inadmissible as it is a photocopy.</span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> It is also contended that the defendant would not have made provision for the claimant's terminal benefit in a financial books for the year ending 2012, a futuristic action. It is my finding that Exhibit AO9 emanates from a proper source as it relates to termination of employment and final entitlements of the claimant and also relevant to the facts in issue which is a claim for termination and terminal benefit/gratuity. </span></b></span><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE"> It was equally signed by the erstwhile MD of the company, Chester Ukandu. It is trite that relevancy is a precursor to admissibility.</span></b><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif"> In effect the document in issue has fulfilled all the rules of admissibility and should be admissible in evidence. It is germane to state at this point that this Court is both a Court of Law and Equity and by Section 12 (2) (b) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, this Court in the overall interest of justice may depart from the strict adherence of the Evidence Act, it is thus in the overall interest of justice that I exercise my discretion in this regard and admit exhibit AO9, i.e. the internal mail conveying to the claimant issues bordering on his employment and final terminal benefits. I so find and hold''. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">Next is the contradictions in CW2'S testimony, I decided in Awe Oulgbenga's case supra, thus-<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><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></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">As regards the contradictions in CW2's testimony, it is the defendant's grouse that the CW2's testimony is full of contradictions and should thus be discountenanced. The law is long settled that, it is the primary function of a trial court which had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses to assess and evaluate the evidence led by them. In other words, the evaluation of evidence and ascription of probative value to such evidence, both oral and documentary, are the functions of a trial court which saw, heard and assessed the witnesses.</span></b></span><span class="apple-converted-space"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> </span></b></span><span class="apple-style-span"><b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif"> I have taken time to go through the evidence of CW2 before this Court, the evidence he gave in this case as well as other sister cases as a subpoenaed witness, including his evidence under cross examination and documents identified by him, it is the Court's finding that there are no material contradictions in the evidence of the CW2 that is so grave to warrant setting aside his testimony on record, or differently put the alleged contradictions are not so material to the extent that they cast serious doubts on the claimant's case as presented, thus the Court shall place premium on it. I so hold.'' <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">I adopt my decision as regards the testimony of CW2 captured above, and wish to further state by placing heavy reliance on the decision of the apex court in <b>7up v, Abiola & Sons [2001]6SCNJ,46, per M.E. Ogundare JSC </b>thus-<o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE"> <o:p></o:p></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE"> <b>''...Hence it is said that a trial court has the primary function of assessing the quality of the evidence received by it, by giving credence to or expressing doubt about witnesses whom it had the advantage of seeing and hearing testify, weighing the evidence of one witness against that of another where appropriate making finding of fact and finally deciding in a civil case, which side of the case presented to prefer...''<o:p></o:p></b></span></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span class="apple-style-span"><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></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">I adopt my decision on the admissibility or otherwise of the above stated documents in all these four cases and place heavy reliance on them and further find and hold that the above stated documents are admissible and thus remains admitted in evidence. I so hold.<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;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:0cm;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align: justify"><span class="apple-style-span"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">Now, to the crux of this case, is the termination of claimant's employment wrongful? It is the law of common place that where an employee contends that the cessation of his employment with his employer is wrongful, it is incumbent on him to place before the court the document regulating his employment relationship as that is the basis upon which the court will find. The court is precluded from looking outside the ambit of the terms of the contract of employment between an employer and employee. All it need do is simply to interpret same before it. See the case of <b>Samuel Isheno v Julius Berger Nig Plc [2014] 43 NLLR (Pt 136) p.320 @ 346; Aji v. Chad Basin Development Authority [2015] LPELR, 24562; Paul Ojeikere v British American Tobacco (Nig) ltd unreported suit no NICN/LA/629/2012 delivered on the 15<sup>th</sup> of November, 2015. </b>In the instant case, the claimant tendered his letter of employment, staff handbook and confirmation of employment which are Exhibits AA1, AA2 and AA4. Claimant in prove of his claim</span></span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> subpoenaed the erstwhile MD/CEO of the defendant, one Mr. Chester Ukandu who testified as CW2, confirming and corroborated the claimant’s claim as to the contract of his employment. <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;mso-bidi-language:HE"> </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;mso-bidi-language:HE">It is on record that DW2 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">OluwadareAkingbola </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">whilst denying the existence of the handbook under oath stated that the bank has a handbook for all its subsidiaries in 2014 but the purported handbook of 2014 is not before the court. The law is that he who asserts a fact must prove the existence of such fact. See Section 131 of the Evidence Act, 2011. The onus of proving the existence of 2014 handbook of the defendant as alleged by DW2, i.e. the Acting MD of the defendant, is on him, it is however, noteworthy that DW2 failed to adduce evidence in prove or tender the alleged 2014 Handbook in court in prove of same. The Court is thus left with no choice but to rely on the only existing Staff Handbook of the defendant before the Court which was referred to in other documents like the minutes of meeting of 13/9/06, Exhibits AA3, the Annual Returns exhibit AA8 and claimant's letter of employment Exhibit AA1, as other terms and conditions of employment. In addition, the claimant’s employment was terminated on the 28<sup>th</sup> of June, 2013, thus it is untenable and beyond common sense/any human reasoning for the defendant to refer to the alleged 2014 handbook in 2011 annual returns, i.e.2014 non existing handbook in 2011 when the annual returns was made. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">The germane questions that need answers as regards the staff handbook is whether or not it emanates from the defendant, and if so does it contain the terms and conditions of the contract of employment regulating the affairs of both parties?. The defendant in this suit failed to disprove the evidence of both CW1 and CW2, when it stated that exhibit AA2 did not emanate from it vide substantial evidence, thus having failed to so do I further find and hold that the Handbook tendered by the claimant on record is the defendant's employee's Handbook, </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">I equally find and hold that the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment is equally regulated by Exhibit AA2 which is the Defendant’s handbook as approved by the board in Exhibits AA3 and corroborated by CW2 the then MD/CEO of the defendant who admitted that the management of the defendant under his leadership gave all staff of the defendant a copy of the handbook and his action is binding on the defendant as an agent of the defendant. As the law is settled that the action of an agent of a disclosed principal is binding on the principal. See the cases of <b>Mikano International Limited v Mr Rawlings Ehumadu (Trading under the name and style of Silver Spring Realtors) 2014 1 NWLR (Pt. 1387) p. 100; Barr Toyin Gbede v Nigerite Limited and anor unreported suit no NICN/LA/01/2015 delivered on the 8<sup>th</sup> of February, 2017</b>; <b>Mr. Chester Onyemaechi Ukandu v Mainstreet Bank Registrars Limited supra.</b></span><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="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"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">It is also the law of common place that in a master servant relationship, an employer has the right to terminate its employee’s employment for good or bad reasons or for no reasons at all provided the termination is in accordance with the terms of the contract of employment. See <b>Mr. Anaja v United Bank for Africa Plc [2014] 4 ACELR 78; Donier Aviation Nig ltd v Oluwadare [2007] 7 NWLR (Pt.1033) 336. </b>It is not in doubt that the claimant was an employee of the defendant. The area of divergence between the parties is the manner the claimant's employment was terminated. The claimant’s employment was terminated on the 28th June, 2013 and to him his appointment was terminated without the requisite notice and was not paid his entitlements. The claimant stated in prove of his case, that by paragraphs 3.8 and 3.16 of the defendant’s staff hand book exhibit AA2 the defendant has breached the terms of the contract of employment by not issuing him the requisite notice as stated in the handbook. The defendant, by paragraph 19 of DW1 witness statement on oath averred that the claimant’s employment was terminated on the 28<sup>th</sup> of June 2013 but in accordance with the terms of claimant’s contract of employment. He also admitted that by paragraph 22 of his sworn deposition that the claimant indeed is entitled to be issued a one month notice or be paid one month basic salary in lieu of notice before his termination and was indeed paid the sum of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-font-width:105%">N10,846 as his basic salary. Furthermore vide paragraph 25 he averred that the defendant management graciously approved to the claimant the sum of N139, 686.75 as ex-gratia payment. </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">The claimant admitted under oath that these amount was paid into his account on 20th August, 2013, but he rejected the said payment vide a letter he caused his counsel to write to the defendant i.e. exhibit AA7on the 21<sup>st</sup> of August, 2013 and urged the defendant to either retrieve the amount paid into his account or alternatively take it as part payment of his entitlement. Paragraph 3 of exhibit AA7 is highlighted thus for ease of reference-<o:p></o:p></span></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="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">'' Our client do not intend to accept anything less than what is legally due to them as terminal benefits. if the said payment is in satisfaction of their entitlements from your company, we hereby on their behalf reject the payments. You are thereof at liberty to recall the payments. Alternatively our clients can consider the payment as part payment whilst they pursue the payment of the balance''<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">The defendant did not however respond to this letter or recalled the money paid into claimant's account. Meanwhile claimant's letter of termination exhibit AA5 was dated 28th June, 2013 but was to take effect on 1st July, 2013. The import of which is that the claimant was given one day notice of termination, whilst staff handbook states that 30 days notice is required to determine the employment. The import of which is that a party intending to determine the relationship without notice is to give 30 days/one month salary in lieu of notice. It is obvious from exhibit AA6 which is claimant's January, 2013 pay slip that the claimant's 30 days/ one month salary is N114,113.72. Contrary to what the defendant paid the claimant as salary in lieu of notice which was the sum of N10,846 claimant's one month basic salary, this is in clear breach of the claimant's terms of employment. I also find that the claimant in clear terms rejected the said payment. It is thus not true that the claimant accepted the payment and thus estopped from complaining as canvassed by the defendant. The act of the defendant paying the claimant his basic salary is a clear disregard and contravention of the provision of the terms of contract binding on both parties. Furthermore, it is in my humble but firm view that the period of notice reasonable as regards the status and salary of the claimant is one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. It is in consequence that I find that the termination of claimant's employment by the defendant is wrongful and he is thus entitled to damages. 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:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">Now, having held that the termination of claimant's employment by the defendant is wrongful, what are his claims? It is the claimant’s claim that he is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice, i.e. the sum of N114, 113.72 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">and </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">Terminal benefit in the sum of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">N2,738,729.28 less N139,686.75</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">. The defence in response contended that the claimant is not entitled to any terminal benefit in the said sum as claimed by the claimant. It is on record that the defendant had at its board of directors meeting dated 13/09/2006, as evinced by Exhibits AA3, approved benefits for its staff at page 8 at paragraph 8.01 and 8.02 of the minutes of 13/09/2006, which shows the analysis of annual staff remuneration. I have carefully examined the handbook Exhibit AA2 and I observed that the only provision on termination is a requisite notice and payment of other terminal benefits the staff is entitled to. The minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of the defendant Exhibit AA3, and approved by the defendant’s Board of directors, specifically made provision in its Appendix ii of Exhibit AA3 for the payment of gratuity to its staff who has served the defendant for five (5) years and above. The calculation of which consists of 100% of the annual basic salary plus monthly Housing allowance, transport allowance, multiplied by the number of years of service. It is on record that the claimant was employed by the defendant in January, 2008 and his employment terminated on the 1st of July, 2013, vide a letter dated 28th June, 2013, what this means is that the claimant having served for the period of five years and six months is thus entitled to benefit from the provisions of clause 4.9 of the staff handbook exhibit AA2 which is in tandem with Appendix ii in Exhibit AA3 which provides thus;<o:p></o:p></span></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="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">“Gratuity<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">Qualification 5 years’ service and above<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">100% of annual basic salary plus monthly housing allowance, transport allowance, multiply by the number of years of service.â€<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">The claimant is thus entitled to 100% of his annual basic salary, by claimant's pay slip as at January, 2013 claimant's monthly basic salary is N10,846.00 multiplied by 12 will give his annual basic as N130,152.00; plus monthly housing allowance i.e. N17,141.67, plus transport allowance i.e. N12,856.25, multiplied by five years will give a total of N800,749.6 and not </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">N139,686.75 </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">so called ex gratia payment paid into claimant's account on 20th August 2013 almost two months after terminating claimant's employment, but was rejected by the claimant. It is from all the above that I find that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N800,748.35 as his gratuity. Also, the defendant, having failed to pay the claimant his entitlements at the time of determining his employment, makes it important for him to be compensated considering the current value of the Nigerian currency and the inflation rate, it is thus pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006, which empowers this Court to award compensation in any case it has jurisdiction, I order that the claimant is to be paid 3 months emolument as compensation by the defendant, the claimant's monthly emolument by his June pay slip show his total emolument for the month as N114,113.72 this multiplied by 3 is N342,341.16. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">In conclusion, it is obvious that the claimant’s claims succeed and for the avoidance of doubt, I declare and order as follow;<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">1.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">That the claimant’s employment was wrongfully determined by the defendant. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">2.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">That the claimant is entitled to terminal benefits/gratuity having served the defendant for 5 years and six months.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">3.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">That the defendant shall pay the claimant the sum of N114,113.72 as one month/30days salary in lieu of notice less the N10,846.00 that was earlier paid into claimant's account. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">4.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">That the defendant shall pay to the claimant his gratuity in the sum of N800, 749.6 less the sum of </span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height: 115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif">N139,686.75 ex gratia payment</span><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">5.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">That the defendant shall pay the sum of N342,341.16 as compensation to the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">6.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">I award the cost of N50,000 in favour of the claimant.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="margin-left:36.0pt;text-align:justify;text-indent: -18.0pt;line-height:115%;mso-list:l1 level1 lfo10"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-language:HE">7.<span style="font-stretch: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-family: 'Times New Roman';"> </span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt; line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-bidi-language:HE">All sums awarded in this judgment shall be paid to the claimant within 30days of this judgment failing which an interest of 21% per annum shall be paid on it.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE">Judgment is accordingly entered.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"> </span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;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="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;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="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;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">HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O.<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" align="center" style="text-align:center;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">JUDGE</span></b><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;line-height:115%;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif; mso-bidi-language:HE"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNoSpacing" style="text-align:justify;line-height:115%"><span lang="EN-US" style="font-size:14.0pt;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"> </span></p>