Download PDF
1. The claimant was employed by the defendant as a Security Officer on 1st February 2012 and his employment was confirmed on 19th September 2012 after successfully completing the mandatory probation period. To the claimant, his job title was revised after 3 years to Profiler AVSEC without commensurate pay. On 2nd September 2015, there was an allegation by the defendant that the claimant and his team (6 persons in all) compromised in the performance of their duties at the Murtala Muhammed Airport, Lagos in that a passenger (Otobo Monday) boarded the Aircraft (Flight W3 101 LOS-LHR) without the right documentation when the claimant and his team were on duty. Following this allegation, the claimant was placed on two (2) weeks suspension with effect from 22nd September 2015 to allow for investigation. A disciplinary panel was set up by the Human Resources Department of the defendant and the claimant together with the other members of his team appeared before the disciplinary panel. The claimant went on that based on the disciplinary panel’s report, he and three others were summarily dismissed without benefits while the leader of the team and another member of the team were pardoned by the defendant and restored to their respective positions. To the claimant, the allegation leveled against him by the defendant was unfounded and the disciplinary panel failed to do a thorough investigation which led to miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, that the Human Resource Manual and the Employee Handbook copiously referred to by the disciplinary panel and which provisions formed the basis upon which the claimant was summarily dismissed were never given to the claimant by the defendant. That the working benefits of the claimant such as salaries, wages and emoluments of September 2015 and October 2015 were not paid upon the purported dismissal of the claimant on 6th October 2015. Also, that the defendant has continued to deprive the claimant of his pension for almost 3 years (34 months) thereby subjecting the claimant to untold hardship. The claimant wrote to the defendant through his solicitors demanding for compensation for wrongful dismissal and for failure to remit salary and pension via the solicitor’s letter dated 4th December 2015 but the defendant failed to respond, thus giving rise to this action for redress. 2. On 26th February 2016, the claimant decided to file this suit vide a complaint, statement of facts, list of witnesses, witness statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied on at the trial. The claimant by this suit is claiming against the defendant the following reliefs: (1) A declaration that the conditions of service of the clamant is regulated by the letter of appointment dated February 20, 2012 only and not the Employment Handbook or the Human Resource Manual which were not given to the claimant. (2) An order setting aside the summary dismissal of the claimant of 6th October, 2015 for being wrongful, null and void. (3) An order directing the defendant to reinstate the claimant effective from 6th of October, 2015 when the claimant was wrongfully and unlawfully dismissed. (4) An order mandating the defendant to issue a written apology for the wrongful termination of appointment and summary dismissal suffered by the claimant on the 6th of October, 2015 for an allegation that is unproven and judged unfairly. (5) An order compelling the defendant to pay all the salaries and allowances of the claimant of September, 2015, October 2015 and till the date of judgment. (6) An order compelling the defendant to pay the difference of the salary/wages of Profiler AVSEC from 23rd February, 2015 to October, 2015. (7) An order compelling the defendant to pay all the outstanding pension contribution of the claimant of October 2012 - December 2012 (N27,000.00 - Twenty-Seven Thousand Naira) and of March 2013 - October 2015 (N288,000 - Two Hundred and Eighty-Eight Thousand Naira) and payment of monthly pension contribution till the date of judgment in this suit. (8) An order directing the defendant to pay the sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) being compensation, special, aggravated, exemplary and general damages for wrongful and unlawful termination of employment, for failure to pay allowance and wages as at when due and for failure to remit the claimant’s pension to his Pension Managers for 34 months counting. (9) 21 percent interest on the judgment sum from the day judgment is delivered until satisfaction of the judgment sum. (10) Cost of this action in the sum of N750,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only). ALTERNATIVELY 1) An order directing the defendant to pay the sum of N30,000,000 (Thirty Million Naira) being compensation, special, aggravated, exemplary and general damages for wrongful and unlawful termination, for failure to remit the claimant’s pension to the claimant’s Pension Fund Managers for 34 months counting. 2) Cost of this action in the sum of N750,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only). 3. The defendant did not enter any appearance or file any defence processes. This does not, however, absolve the claimant from proving his case under the minimal evidence rule. See Mr. Lawrence Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano [2011] 25 NLLR (Pt. 70) 45 CA at 69, Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye [2007] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218 SC at 247 and Attorney General Osun State v. NLC & ors [2013] 34 NLLR (Pt. 99) 278 NIC. At the trial, the claimant testified on his own behalf as CW. Thereafter, given that the defendant did not enter any defence, the claimant filed his final written address on 6th June 2017. 4. The claimant submitted two issues for determination, namely: (a) Whether the summary dismissal of the claimant is not wrongful. (b) Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 5. Regarding issue (a), the claimant contended that his termination was based on a non-existent document; as such the dismissal is wrongful as the defendant failed to weigh the whole surrounding circumstances of the event of 2nd September 2015 before arriving at the abrupt conclusion that the claimant be summarily dismissed. It is case of the claimant that by virtue of Exhibit C6, he was summarily dismissed on the allegation of gross misconduct. In his evidence-in-chief, the claimant traced the trajectory of the scenario leading to his summary dismissal and highlighted the omissions of the defendant. It was the allegation of the defendant that the claimant on 2nd September 2015 together with his team comprising of six persons allowed a passenger (“Sunday Otobo”) to board the Aircraft (Flight W3 101 LAGOS-LONDON HEATHROW) without proper documentation. That the team was suspended and a disciplinary panel was set up which recommended the claimant’s summary dismissal based on section 13.4.14 of the Human Resource Manual (Employment Policy), a document which was never given to the claimant. To the claimant, the only document given to him upon employment which contains the essential terms of employment was the employment letter dated February 20, 2012 (Exhibit C1); that the defendant (sic) was not given the Human Resource Manual (Employment Policy), therefore, the defendant cannot based the summary dismissal on the contravention of a non-existing document, this will be in negation of the principle of legality. That the said section 13.4.14 of the Human Resource Manual (Employment Policy) which is said to amount to gross misconduct is completely alien to the claimant because he was never given the manual. That there is no proof or evidence before this Court that the claimant was given or acknowledged the receipt of any Employment Manual, urging the Court to believe the uncontroverted testimony of the claimant, citing Best Vision Con. Ltd v. UAC Plc [2003] 13 NWLR (Pt. 838) at 594. That it has been decided in a plethora of cases that where parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add to, vary, subtract from or contradict the terms, referring to NSC (Nig) Ltd v. Innis-Palmer [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 422 at 526. The claimant then urged the Court to grant the order for declaration sought by claimant that the conditions of service of the claimant is regulated by the letter of employment dated February 20, 2012 and not the Employment Handbook or the Human Resource Manual which were never given to the claimant, citing section 19(b) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006. The claimant also urged the Court to set aside his summary dismissal and hold same as wrongful. 6. The claimant continued that assuming without conceding that there was an Employment Policy Manual given to the claimant, the investigation process, procedure and the eventual conclusion of the investigative panel set up by the defendant was fraught with bias, discrimination, prejudice, shoddy investigation, nepotism and failure to adhere to global best practices. That by a letter dated 22nd September 2015 (Exhibit C5), the claimant was suspended from work for two weeks to allow for investigation; however, the following issues were never considered in the investigation: (1) The fact that the event of traveling with wrong documentation never occurred at all because the said person was never deported. If it was truly discovered in London Heathrow, he would have been deported, referring to paragraph 23 of the Claimant’s written statement on oath. (2) The fact that the investigative panel of the defendant failed, omitted and neglected to play the CCTV footage of the purported omission casts doubts on the veracity of the event, referring to paragraph 23(a) of the Claimant’s written statement on oath. (3) The uncontroverted and unassailable testimony of the last person that checked in the passenger that she checked in the right person (Otobo Monday) was never refuted by any cogent documentary or relevant proof from the defendant, referring to paragraph 23(b) of claimant’s written statement on oath. (4) The investigative panel was merely acting on speculation and wrong prognosis as one beating the air as there is no established wrong against the defendant and his team, referring to paragraph 23(d) of the claimant’s written statement on oath. (5) The fact that while the head of the team and another member were restored to their respective positions while the defendant (sic) and his 3 other colleagues were summarily dismissed under the same course of events evince bias, nepotism, unfair and discriminatory treatment, referring to paragraph 23(e) of the claimant’s written statement on oath. 7. The claimant went on that section 42 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 5 of the ILO Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No. 158) is to the effect that a person should not be discriminated against in the consideration of any advantage or privilege on the basis of communities, ethnic groups, place of origin, religion, sex or political opinion. That the investigative panel of the defendant was in gross contravention of this principle by reinstating some and dismissing the others in the course of the same transaction. Furthermore, that the burden of proving that there is a valid reason for the termination of the employment of the claimant remains undischarged as required by Articles 4 and 9(2)(a) of the ILO Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No. 158). That the employment of a worker shall not be terminated unless there is a valid reason for such termination connected with the capacity or conduct of the worker or based on the operational requirements of the undertaking, establishment or service (Article 4). That by Article 9(2), in order for the worker not to have to bear alone the burden of proving that the termination was not justified, the methods of implementation referred to in Article 1 of this Convention shall provide for one or the other or both of the following possibilities: the burden of proving the existence of a valid reason for the termination as defined in Article 4 of this Convention shall rest on the employer (Article 9(2)(a)). The claimant then urged the Court to discountenance the reasoning of the investigative panel set up by the defendant and set aside the wrongful dismissal of the claimant as being wrongful, null and void. Furthermore, that the Court should convert the summary dismissal of the claimant to termination since the claimant has been able to show that his dismissal was contrary to the terms of the employment contract. 8. On the defendant’s failure to remit the claimant’s arrears of salaries and pensions, the claimant submitted that the defendant upon the summarily dismissal of the claimant failed to pay his outstanding salaries and pension. That the salaries of September 2015 and October 2015 were never paid. Also, that despite the promotion of the claimant in February 2015 by virtue of Exhibit C4, to Profiler AVSEC, the corresponding salary for the said stage was never paid. In the same vein, that the pension contribution of the claimant for three (3) years was never remitted, referring to paragraph 30(i) - (vi) of the claimant’s written statement on oath. 9. To the claimant, the Court has held that salary in lieu of notice must be paid contemporaneously with the time of termination of employment, otherwise the termination will be held to be wrongful, referring to Onah v. NLC [2013] NLLR (Pt. 94) 104. That the failure of the defendant to pay the salaries of the claimant in the same month in which his appointment was terminated and the preceding month makes the termination wrongful. That it has been held that once it is shown that an employer has made a promise to pay employees certain benefits, the Court will enforce the payment; and that severance benefits once clearly provided for by an employer, are enforceable without the need to prove consideration, referring to Metal Priducts Senior Staff Association v. Management of Metal Construction (WA) Ltd [1988] DJNIC 27 at 28. That it is worthy of note that though the claimant was wrongfully dismissed by the defendant, the claimant is still ordinarily entitled to take his accrued benefits, referring to Deji Elias - “Summary Dismissal Upon Allegation of a Crime - An Overview” Modern Journal of Finance and Investment Law Vol. 4 No. 3 (2000) 134 at 136. 10. The claimant referred to Article 12(1) of the ILO Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No. 158), which states as follows: A worker whose employment has been terminated shall be entitled, in accordance with national law and practice, to - (a) a severance allowance or other separation benefits, the amount of which shall be based inter alia on length of service and the level of wages, and paid directly by the employer or by a fund constituted by employers’ contributions; or (b) benefits from unemployment insurance or assistance or other forms of social security, such as old-age or invalidity benefits, under the normal conditions to which such benefits are subject; or (c) a combination of such allowance and benefits. That in the light of the foregoing, the Court should uphold the prayers for the payment of his outstanding salaries and pension contribution as contained in prayers (5), (6) and (7) of his complaint. 11. On the issue of damages for wrongful termination of employment and failure to pay salaries and remit pension, the claimant submitted that it is his claim that he is entitled to compensation, special, aggravated, exemplary and general damages for wrongful termination of employment and for failure to pay his outstanding salaries and remit his pensions. That section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 empowers this Court to make an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated under the Act or any other Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear, citing Osumah v. Edo Broadcasting Service & anor [2011] 23 NLLR (Pt. 65) 212, which held that the effect of wrongful termination is not reinstatement but damages; PTI v. Nesimone [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 402) 414 at 488, which held that under Nigerian Law, a wrongfully dismissed worker cannot get both damages and reinstatement at the same time, it must be one or the other; Bakare v. Lagos State Civil Service Commission [1992] 8 NWLR (Pt. 262) at 641; and Onah v. NLC [2013] 33 NLLR (Pt. 94) 104, where this Court awarded two (2) years salary as general and aggravated damages in favour of the claimant whose employment was found to have been wrongfully and invalidly terminated. As regards compensation, that in Industrial Cartons Ltd v. NUPAWW [2006] 6 NLLR (Pt. 15) 258, it was held that where the reasons given for the termination of employment in incorrect as in this case, the payment of one month in lieu of notice will be grossly inadequate as compensation. In that case, the Court awarded six months salary as compensation on this ground. Also referred is Ekeagwu v. Nigerian Army [2010] 42 (Pt. 2) NSCQR 1238 at 1248, where Onnoghen, JSC (as he then was) held that where a plaintiff seeks the relief of reinstatement, which relief is granted, the issue of measure of damages for wrongful termination/dismissal/retirement becomes irrelevant because upon reinstatement the plaintiff party is entitled to be paid all his arrears of salary/emolument including fringe benefits up to the point/time of reinstatement and thereafter as and when due and payable. That in the instant case, where the claimant is entitled to damages/compensation, the Court should award damages in an amount not less than the amount that would have accrued to him if he had been reinstated. 12. The claimant went on that as at the time of his wrongful termination, his annual remuneration was N960,000.00 (Nine Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira) or N80,000 (Eighty Thousand Naira) monthly, not to mention the fact that though he was promoted since February 2015 (Exhibit C4), his salary was not reviewed to what a PROFILER AVSEC earns. That a Profiler AVSEC earns N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) monthly or N1,200,000 (One Million Two Hundred Thousand Naira) annually. In the light of the foregoing, the claimant submitted that in the least, he is entitled to the payment of N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) monthly as salary from the month of September 2015 when his appointment was wrongfully terminated till the date judgment is entered in this suit. Furthermore, that the claimant is also entitled to the payment of his pension of N9,000 (Nine Thousand Naira) monthly and other allowances from the date his appointment was wrongfully terminated (October 2015) till the date when judgment is delivered in this suit. The claimant then urged the Court to meticulously calculate the amount due to him in accordance to the letter of appointment (Exhibit C1), the evidence-in-chief of the claimant (paragraphs 10, 29 and 30(i) - (vi)) and the surrounding circumstances of this case and grant the compensation claimed by the claimant in prayers (8) and alternative prayer (1) of his claims. 13. On the claim for 21% interest on the judgment sum, the claimant referred to Order 47 Rule 7 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, which empowers this Court to order interest at a rate not less than 10%. That the prayer of the claimant is for 21% interest on the judgment sum from the day judgment is delivered until the satisfaction of the judgment sum, referring to Ekwunife v. Wayne (W/A) Ltd [1989] 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) - the page is not given - where the Supreme Court held that interest could be claimed as of right and where there is power conferred by statute to do so in exercise of the Court’s discretion. To the claimant, he is entitled to interest on his funds that are unduly being withheld by the defendant from when judgment is delivered in this matter at the rate of 21% per annum until final payment, urging the Court to so hold. 14. On indemnification as to the cost of this action, the claimant referred to section 40 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and Order 55 of the National Industrial Court (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, which empower this Court to determine and award costs. That Order 55 Rules 4 and 5 are to the effect that in the award of cost, a party who is in the right is to be indemnified for the expenses incurred in the course of the proceedings as well as compensated for his time and effort. That as averred in the paragraph 38 of the claimant’s written statement on Oath (evidence-in-chief), the claimant is entitled to the legal cost of N750,000 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) as evidenced in the Bill of Cost of his solicitors (Exhibit C13) to prosecute the action, urging the Court to award same. 15. As to the uncontroverted evidence of the claimant, the claimant submitted that the defendant was duly served with the processes of this Court; however it failed to either enter an appearance or file a defence. To the claimant, the position of the law is clear on this point that where a claimant files a claim/complaint and the defendant fails or refuses to file a statement of defence to join issues with the claimant, he will be deemed to have admitted the statement of claim leaving the trial Court with the authority to peremptorily enter judgment for the claimant without hearing evidence, citing Salzgitter Stahl GM BH v. Tunji Dosumu Industries Ltd [2010] 42 NSCQR 1085 at 1109. Furthermore, that the law is clear that evidence which is not contradicted or denied is deemed to have been admitted. Apart from the evidence led, that it is the law that the fact that an averment is not denied is enough to admit it in evidence. In the instant case, that the defendant did not deny the pleadings or contradict the evidence led by the claimant’s witness, citing Cappa & D’Alberto Ltd v. Akintilo [2003] 9 NWLR (Pt. 824) 49 at 71. Further still, that a trial court is always entitled to accept and/or act upon unchallenged and uncontradicted evidence and that where a party has every opportunity to challenge evidence given by the opposite party in any proceedings but failed to do so, he cannot complain if the Court seised of the matter, acts on such unchallenged evidence before it, citing Skypower Airways Ltd v. Olima [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 224 at 254, Omorege v. Lawani [1980] 3 - 4 SC 108 at 117, Garba v. Zaria [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt. 953) 55, Ikono LG v. De Beacon Finance Ltd [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 756) 120, Nigerian Maritime Services Ltd v. Folabi [1978] 2 SC 79 and Akinsulie v. Ogunyanju [2011] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1261) 264. To the claimant, in line with the position of the law, a party who was given adequate time to present his case before the trial Court but failed to present same cannot subsequently complain of lack of fair hearing. That having being afforded a right to fair hearing in order to controvert the evidence of the claimant, which the defendant willfully refused to take advantage of, the defendant leaves the trial Court with the authority to enter judgment for the claimant without hearing evidence, citing S & D Const. Co. Ltd v. Ayoku [2011] 13 NWLR (Pt 1265) 487 and Salzgitter Stahl GM BH v. Tunji Dosumu Industries Ltd (supra). The claimant concluded by urging the Court to grant the reliefs sought by him. COURT’S DECISION 16. I have carefully considered the processes filed and the submissions of counsel. Despite the argument of the claimant that his evidence remains unchallenged and uncontroverted and so must be deemed admitted by the defendant given that the defendant entered no defence in this matter, I indicated earlier that this does not absolve the claimant from proving his case under the minimal evidence rule. In citing Skypower Airways Ltd v. Olima (supra), the claimant at least acknowledged this point. 17. The claimant is complaining about his summary dismissal by the defendant vide Exhibit C6 dated 6th October 2015. He accordingly prays as per relief (2) for an order setting aside the summary dismissal for being wrongful, null and void; and for which as per relief (3) he is paying for reinstatement. Here the claimant does not seem to understand that a dismissal cannot be both wrongful and at the same time null and void. BCC Plc v. Ager [2010] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1199) 292 SC held that there is a distinction between mere wrongful dismissal and an invalid or null dismissal. That where the Court makes a finding of wrongful dismissal, a payment in lieu of notice will apply; but where the finding is that the dismissal or termination was null and void, then there is no dismissal or termination as what the employer did was a nullity before the law. 18. The claimant contended that his summary dismissal for gross misconduct was based on a non-existent document; as such the dismissal is wrongful. Exhibit C1 dated 20th February 2012 is the letter by the defendant appointing the claimant as Security Officer. Under the provision dealing with probation and confirmation, clause (a) states that “this appointment letter is to be accepted together with the general conditions of employment in Arik Air Limited which shall be issued to you on your resumption”. There is a “General Terms & Conditions of Employment” attached to Exhibit C1. Here, in the provisions dealing with “Disciplinary Rules and Procedures” and “Grievance Procedure”, the defendant enjoined its employees to conform to its standards of conduct and performance as contained in the Employee Handbook. Now, by Simon Ansambe v. Bank of the North Ltd [2005] 8 NWLR (Pt. 928) 650, the fact that there is no specific provision as to termination or summary dismissal in the terms of the contract will not prevent the employer from exercising his right to so terminate or dismiss e.g. for gross misconduct. See also Ziideeh v. RSCSC [2007] LPELR-3544(SC); [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554; [2007] 1 – 2 SC 1, which held that “it is now firmly settled that in statutory employment, just as in private employment, an employer can summarily dismiss the servant in all cases of gross misconduct provided of course, the employee is given the opportunity of fair hearing”. The argument of the claimant as to his summary dismissal being based on a non-existent document accordingly goes to no issue; and I so find and hold. 19. It is the further contention of the claimant that the investigation process, procedure and the eventual conclusion of the investigative panel set up by the defendant was fraught with bias, discrimination, prejudice, shoddy investigation, nepotism and failure to adhere to global best practices. The claimant went on to give the particulars of the shoddy investigation. Aside from the mere assertion of the claimant as to these particulars, nothing else is provided to substantiate any of them. For instance, the claimant submitted that the investigative panel of the defendant was in gross contravention of the principle against discrimination by reinstating some of his dismissed colleagues and dismissing the others in the course of the same transaction, relying on section 42 of the 1999 Constitution and Article 5 of the ILO Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No. 158), which are to the effect that a person should not be discriminated against in the consideration of any advantage or privilege on the basis of communities, ethnic groups, place of origin, religion, sex or political opinion. Who these reinstated colleagues are were not put forward in evidence before the Court. There is no pleading to justify the reliance on Articles 4, 5 and 9(2)(a) of the ILO Convention 158 by the claimant. In Joshua Abiodun Babalola v. State Security Service unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/605/2015, the judgment of which was delivered on 10th July 2017, this Court at paragraph 28 of the judgment held thus: In further support of his stance, the claimant relied on Article 4 of ILO Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No. 158), which to him this Court is empowered to apply by virtue of section 7 of the NIC Act 2006 and section 254C(1)(f) and (h) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution. Convention No. 158 has not been ratified by Nigeria; as such it is not of automatic application in virtue of section 254C(1)(f) and (h) and (2) of the 1999 Constitution. If the desire of the claimant is to have Convention 158 applied as good international practice, then the claimant must plead and proof it as enjoined by section 7(6) of the NIC Act 2006. See Oyo State v. Alhaji Apapa & ors [2008] 11 NLLR (Pt. 29) 284. I looked through the claimant’s pleadings, and I did not see any pleading in this regard. The claimant cannot, therefore, in his written address raise and rely on Convention 158 in the manner just done… The reliance on section 42 of the 1999 Constitution cannot equally be of any help since no evidence of the persons against whom the claimant was discriminated was put forward before the Court. 20. As it is, therefore, the claimant has not successfully proved that his summary dismissal was either wrongful, or null and void. The duty to prove the wrongfulness or nullity of the summary dismissal rests with the claimant, not the defendant. See Ziideel v. RSCSC [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 SC, Morohunfolu v. Kwara Tech. [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC, Ningi v. FBN Plc [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt. 435) 220 CA, Katto v, CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 SC, Adams v. LSDPC [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 CA, Igbinovia v. UBTH [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 53 CA, Taduggoronno v. Gotom [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453 CA, Okoebor v. Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 SC, Ibama v. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364 SC, Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd v. Dudusola [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 292 CA, WAEC v. Oshionebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA and UBN v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 CA. 21. This being the case, and for all the reasons so far given, reliefs (1), (2), (3), (4), (8) and alternative (1) are not grantable. They fail and so are hereby dismissed. 22. What is left of the claimants claims are the claims for monetary reliefs in terms of salaries and allowances and outstanding pension contribution - reliefs (5), (6), (7) and (9). To the extent that these monetary reliefs are hinged on the wrongfulness or nullity of the summary dismissal, which I just held was not successfully proved by the claimant, these reliefs cannot be granted since the basis of their claim has also not been successfully proved. 23. However, the claimant additionally contended especially as per relief (6) that the claim is hinged on his promotion by the defendant. To the claimant, despite his promotion in February 2015 by virtue of Exhibit C4 to Profiler AVSEC, the corresponding salary for the said stage was never paid. Here the claimant believes he was promoted vide Exhibit C4. Exhibit C4 dated 23rd February 2015 is titled, “Revised Job Title”. It reads: We write to inform you that your job title has been revised. Your new title is Profiler, AVSEC and you will report to the Head, Profiler with immediate effect. Your efforts and support to Arik Air are very much appreciated, congratulations and good luck. This cannot be interpreted as a promotion. The revision of job title is not a promotion. Exhibit C4 did not state that the claimant has been promoted; it did not state a new salary for the claimant in any new rank of promotion. The law is that an employer reserves the right to change the conditions of service. In fact, Mbachu v. AIRBDA [2006] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1000) 691 SC held that an employer can at his discretion prune the schedule of duties of an employee; and the employee cannot preclude the employer from doing so. I do not, therefore, agree with the claimant that Exhibit C4 promoted him. Accordingly, the claimant cannot lay claim to any enhanced entitlement using Exhibit C4 as the basis. I so find and hold. This being the case, relief (6) is not grantable and so must fail on this additional reason. 24. The claimant’s monetary claims are hinged on his salary, whether as to the salary itself or the allowances he is entitled to as well as the pension contribution. All can only be claimed if the claimant’s salary is known. As it, there is no pleading whatsoever of the claimant’s salary. The fact that Exhibit C1 shows an annual salary of N960,000 is unhelpful as the case of the claimant is that he was promoted with an enhanced salary. In any event, Exhibit C1 itself cannot stand alone since there is no pleading as to salary and allowances. The law is that evidence given which is not in line with the facts pleaded goes to no issue and so is of no help to the party that produces it. See The Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Limited v. Kwameh Ambah [1999] LPELR-3202(SC); [1999] 3 NWLR (Pt. 593) 1; [1999] 2 SC 129. 25. The submission of the claimant that a Profiler AVSEC earns N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) monthly or N1,200,000 (One Million Two Hundred Thousand Naira) annually, as such he is entitled to the payment of N100,000 (One Hundred Thousand) monthly as salary from the month of September 2015 when his appointment was wrongfully terminated till the date judgment is entered in this suit, aside from being unsubstantiated (no evidence of the salary of a Profiler AVSEC was adduced to the Court) is baseless since the claimant’s revision of job title is not a promotion in the first place. 26. The claimant proceeded to urge the Court to meticulously calculate the amount due to him in accordance to the letter of appointment (Exhibit C1), the evidence-in-chief of the claimant (paragraphs 10, 29 and 30(i) - (vi)) and the surrounding circumstances of this case and grant the compensation claimed by the claimant in prayer (8) and alternative prayer (1) of his claims. Is the claimant expecting the Court to do his work for him? The rule is that aside from showing and proving an entitlement to his claims, the claimants must equally show to the Court how he came by the quantum of his claim. This is the duty the law places on the claimant, not on the defendant, or as the claimant seems to suggest, on the Court. See Mr. Mohammed Dungus & ors v. ENL Consortium Ltd [2015] 60 NLLR (Pt. 208) 39. 27. The claimant’s reliance in the instant case on Article 12(1) of the ILO Termination of Employment Convention 1982 (No. 158) as the basis for the payment of his outstanding salaries and pension contribution as contained in reliefs (5), (6) and (7) of his complaint cannot stand as there is no pleading whatsoever by the claimant as to Convention 158. See Joshua Abiodun Babalola v. State Security Service (supra). 28. On the whole, and for the reasons given, the claimant has not successfully proved his case to the satisfaction of the Court. His case fails and so is hereby dismissed. 29. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip, PhD