Download PDF
JUDGMENT. The Claimant approached this Court via complaint dated 27/9/17 and filed on the same day, claiming the reliefs stated hereunder:- a. A Declaration that the Defendant breached the terms of employment as contained in the letters of employment issued to the Claimant by the Defendant and particularly the condition for the termination of employment of the Claimant as provided at pages 58-62 of the Defendant’s Human Capital Management Polices and Procedure dated 13th day of March, 2006. b. A Declaration that the Defendant breached the laid down procedure for the termination of the employment of the Claimant as contained at page 61 of the Defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure when it terminated the employment of the Claimant without first placing the Claimant on redundancy or exploring possibilities of absorbing the Claimant in other functions where the Claimant may be required, or transferring the Claimant to its subsidiary or associated companies. c. A Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to all her salaries and allowances calculated from 27th May, 2016 from month to month until the year 2042 when the Claimant would have attained the age of sixty (60) years which is the mandatory retirement age of the Claimant from the employment of the Defendant as specified at pages 58 and 59 of the Defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure. d. An Order directing the Defendant to forthwith pay to the Claimant the sum of N130,601,781.5k being the total sum of monthly salaries of the Claimant for the months beginning from June, 2016 to August, 2042 when the Claimant would have attained retirement age of sixty (60) years. e. An Order directing the Defendant to forthwith pay the sum of N10,560,838.05k being the retirement savings earning that should have accrued to the Claimant for the months beginning from June, 2016 to August, 2042 when the Claimant would have attained retirement age of sixty (60) years. f. The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two-Million Naira) being the cost of this suit. g. 20% on the Judgment sum until final liquidation of the judgment sum by the Defendant. The hearing of this suit commenced on 24/1/18, when the Claimant opened her case and testified as CW 1, wherein after identifying witness statement on oath sworn to on 27/9/17, adopted same as her evidence in chief. The Claimant also identified additional witness statement on oath sworn to on 19/1/18 and adopted same as her additional evidence in chief in proof of her case and reply to the statement of defence of the Defendant. In the course of giving evidence in chief CW1, tendered ten exhibits marked as exhibits CW1A – CW1J. It is the case of the Claimant that she joined the services of the Defendant effective from the 25th day of October, 2007. The letter of employment was tendered and admitted in evidence and marked as exhibit CW1C 1-2. The appointment of CW1, was confirmed via exhibit CW1D, Letter dated the 23rd day of April, 2008, the confirmation took effect from the 24th day of April, 2008. CW 1, also testified that she served the Defendant diligently and with dedication; this earned her promotion vide exhibit CW1E, letter dated 11th July 2013, to the rank of “Banking Officer” effective from 1st day of October, 2013. The employment of CW1 with the Defendant was vide exhibit CW1I, terminated by the Defendant on the 27th May, 2016. According to the Claimant the termination of her appointment by the Defendant did not follow the laid down procedure as stipulated in her letter of employment and the procedure as stipulated in the Defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure dated 13th March, 2006, exhibit CW1J. It is the evidence of CW 1, that paragraph 3 of her letter of employment stated that her employment will be on a probationary basis for an initial period of six months during which notice of termination by either party will be two weeks or payment in lieu of notice. However, if at the end of the twelve months performance is considered satisfactory, the Claimant’s appointment will be confirmed in writing, after which notice of termination by either party becomes one month or salary in lieu; or as may be subsequently prescribed in the personnel policies manual. CW1, further stated that the conditions relating to the tenure and termination of her employment by the Defendant is contained at pages 58-62 of the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, exhibit CW1J. It was the case of the Claimant that the confirmation of her appointment has made her employment permanent and continuous until she reach retirement age of (60) years. But, a staff can voluntarily retire from the services of the Bank, on reaching a minimum of 10 years unbroken service with the Bank and/or attainment of a minimum age of forty-five (45) years. According to CW 1, the procedure for the termination of her employment by the Defendant is specifically provided at page 61 Article 11 (3). CW 1, stated that the defendant, before terminating her employment did not declare her redundant, the Defendant did not explore the possibilities of absorbing her in other functions or have her transferred to any of its subsidiaries. That the Defendant in terminating her employment simply stated that her service was no longer needed without more which clearly negates the permanent tenure and character of her employment by the Defendant. CW 1, testified that she was born on the 25th day of August, 1982 and as at the time of termination of her employment she was thirty (33) years nine (9) months hence she had a total of twenty-six (26) years, three (3) months for her to have attained the mandatory retirement age of sixty (60) years, this is equivalent to three-hundred and fifteen (315) months. That in the cause of her employment, her salaries were paid into her Salary Account and the salaries were usually paid on the 24th day of each month. That her monthly salaries and allowances comprise of two items namely salary and economic subsidy. Her monthly salary was the sum of N357, 793.76k whole and her monthly and economic subsidy is N56,856.34k; hence her total net monthly salary and allowance is N414,650.1k. Claimant also stated that if not because of the termination of her employment by the Defendant she was prepared to be in the employment of the Defendant until she attained the retirement age of sixty (60) years old. That if not for the termination of her employment by the Defendant she would have earned a total sum of N130,601,781.5k as her salaries and allowances while in the employment of the Defendant until she attain the mandatory retirement age of sixty (60) years old. That the Defendant having deployed unconscionable tactics and forcibly obtained the letter of resignation from the Claimant. The Defendant, on the 8th June, 2016 credited the Claimant’s account as follows:- a. One Month Basic Salary - N89,345.68k b. Leave Days to Cash - N1,624,037.53k c. Leave Allowance - N58,333.33k To establish this assertion the Claimant relied on exhibit CW1H 1-10, her bank statement of account from 1st January, 2015 to 29th June, 2017. The Claimant stated that as regards to the sum paid by the Defendant as stated in paragraph 24 of her statement of facts, the Leave days to Cash and the Leave Allowance were earned by her which the Defendant was under obligation to pay her. That however, the other sum of N89,345.68k paid to her by the Defendant as her one month basic salary in lieu of notice is a far cry from what would have been her salary having regards to the terms of employment and the circumstances of the termination of her employment by the Defendant. The Claimant also stated that in line with the pension policy, the Defendant remitted her monthly pension contributions to her Retirement savings Account with Trust fund Pension Limited: the monthly remittance is the sum of N33,526.47k. That if not for wrongly termination of her employment by the Defendant, she would have earned a further sum of N10,560,838.05k in her Retirement Savings Account. The Claimant averred that because of the economic misery foisted on her by the sudden termination of her employment by the Defendant, she found it quite difficult employing the services of a legal practitioner in good time to have instituted and prosecute her claim against the Defendant. Under cross-examination, CW1 stated that she was employed by the Defendant as executive trainee officer. That exhibit CW1C 1-2 provide that her basic salary is N245,750 and it was for 6 Months’ probation and vide exhibit CW1E her annual basic salary is N1,072,148.16. CW1, also stated that she tendered her letter of resignation physically through Kubwa branch. The letter was tendered because she was told that is upon tendering letter of resignation that her entitlement would be paid. The witness stated that she was coerced to tender the letter of resignation. The witness stated that before she was paid basic salary her account was debited for loan she took from the Bank in the sum of N450,000.00. The debit was on 3/6/16. CW1, stated that it is only on redundancy that she can be terminated. That she was not declared redundant. The reason given for termination of her appointment is service no longer required. CW1, stated that termination can be on basis of fraud or under performance, but she stated that she did not commit any fraud, and it was not stated that she was under performing. She also stated that the bank took her money before paying her as refund of loan. The personal loan was debited in full. CW1, stated that she was written on target 3 days to termination of appointment. In the reply to the statement of defence and the additional witness statement on Oath, CW 1, stated that the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure is the same as personnel policies manual of the Defendant referred to in the letter of employment dated 4th December, 2007. The Defendant failed to adhere to the specific requirements for the termination of employment of the Claimant for unsatisfactory performance as her employment was terminated barely two (2) days after she was served with letter of displeasure by the Defendant. That she did not draw down from her account, because the Defendant promptly debited her account to offset outstanding loan. That she had protested the termination of her employment the reason the Defendant compelled her to write a letter of resignation promising to pay to her all her entitlements afterwards. CASE OF THE DEFENDANT. The Defendant opened its defence on 15/3/18, with Aziamaka Alfred, testifying as DW 1. DW 1, informed the Court that she is the Human Resource Business Partner in the defendant’s company by virtue of which position, she is conversant with the facts of this case. She further informed the Court that she deposed to Witness statement on oath which she adopt as her evidence in Chief in this matter. DW 1, stated that CW 1, the claimant, an ex-staff of the defendant was appointed by the defendant as an Executive Trainee vide exhibit CW1C, an offer letter dated 4th December, 2007. That one of the terms and conditions provided in the offer letter which the claimant voluntarily accepted, is that any of the parties can terminate the employment provided that such a party gives one month notice or one month basic salary in lieu of notice to the other party. That it was exhibit CW1C 1-2, the claimant’s offer letter from the defendant dated the 4th day of December, 2007 that clearly made provisions for the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment. That the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures dated the 13th day of March, 2006, as the name implies, is a policy guide of the Bank for the regulation of the defendant’s staff and the manner they carry out their works. That the said Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures at page 13 Article 5 on “Offer of Employment” provides categorically that offer letters to employees shall state the important terms and conditions of employment. That according to the said Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures at the same page mentioned above, one of the terms and conditions which an offer letter must state is “Termination right and obligations”. That the claimant was promoted to the rank of “Banking Officer” effective from 1st October, 2013. That the defendant’s staff usually gets promoted when they performed optimally and met their targets. However where they underperformed and or unable to meet up with their target, the defendant disciplines them by issuing either caution or warning to the staff concerned and sometimes have their employment terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The performance review in the 1st quarter of 2015 by the defendant revealed that the claimant’s performance on her expected target was very low and as a matter of fact the claimant underperformed. The defendant vide exhibit DW1D and DW1E, communicated its displeasure on the claimant’s underperformance and expressed the obvious necessity of her improving on her performance and target upwards. That the claimant failed and or refused to improve on her performance as advised by the Defendant. That the defendant on the 27th day of May, 2016 sent exhibit CW1I, DW1F, to the Claimant’s email notifying her of her cessation/termination of her employment. That the Claimant upon the receipt of exhibit CW1I, the letter of termination from the defendant on her email on the 27th May, 2016, quickly approached and pleaded with the management of the defendant to allow her tender her resignation letter for personal reasons, which includes the fact that she never wanted the letter of termination and its effect in her file for future reference purposes. That indeed on that same 27th May, 2016, the Claimant voluntarily tendered her resignation letter to the defendant vide her email. The defendant obliged the Claimant’s request and documented her resignation letter in her file and still went ahead to pay her all her terminal benefits including one month’s basic salary in lieu of notice of the termination of her employment. That as a matter of fact the defendant complied duly with the terms and conditions for termination of the claimant’s employment as contained in her offer letter by paying her all her entitlements in this regards. That the claimant’s offer letter as well as the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures recognize the right of either of the party to terminate the employment at any time provided that one month notice or one month basic salary in lieu of notice is given. That vide exhibit CW1H 1-10, the defendant on the 8th day of June 2016, paid the claimant amongst other entitlements her one month basic salary of N89, 345.68 in lieu of notice of termination of her employment as provided by the claimant’s offer letter. The payment was made through the Claimant’s account no. 0003894081. The sum of N89,345.68 is shown in the statement of account starting from 1st May, 2016 to 30th of September, 2017. According to DW1, the claimant accepted and drew down on all the entitlements and terminal benefits paid to her by the defendant without any complaint. That the claimant did not at any point in time material to this issue complain of the termination of her employment since the 27th day of May, 2016, until now, i.e a period spanning over one year and about four months. That the Claimant’s claim that her employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant after more than one year and the collection of her terminal benefits as shown above, is an afterthought. That the defendant complied duly with the terms and conditions stipulated in paragraph 3 of the claimant’s offer letter bothering on termination of employment. That the claimant’s offer letter provided for the terms and conditions of her employment including issues relating to rights and obligations upon termination of the employment. That although the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and procedures provided for compulsory retirement age of 60 (sixty years) the said Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures at page 13 Article 5 clearly states that the terms and conditions of employment of an employee especially terms relating to termination of employment and the rights thereto, must be stated and contained in the employee’s offer letter. That the letter notifying the claimant of the cessation/termination her employment was in line with the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment as contained in her offer letter. That there is no provision both in the claimant’s offer letter and the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures which stipulates that all cessation/termination of employment must be based on grounds of redundancy. That under the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures, the employment of a given defendant’s employee can equally be terminated for unsatisfactory performance. That the claimant’s offer letter and the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures clearly provides that any of the party can commence cessation or terminate the employment at any time provided that one month notice or one month’s salary in lieu of the notice is given to the other party. Further there is no provision both in the claimant’s offer letter and the defendant’s Human capital Management Policies and Procedures that requires any of the party to give reason before it can terminate the employment. The Claimant’s employment was not terminated based on redundancy and the claimant cannot impute that to the defendant. That there is nothing whatsoever in the Claimant’s offer letter or the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedures that suggests that an employee of the defendant must continue and remain in the defendant’s employment till the retirement age. That the defendant remitted the claimant’s monthly pension contribution according to the pension policy and based on the claimant’s grade, into the Retirement Savings account of her chosen pension managers. That the Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs contained in paragraph 31 of her claim, as her claims are totally unfounded, frivolous, speculative and a perfect gold digging exercise. Under cross-examination, DW1, stated that the resignation letter submitted by the Claimant was handwritten and it was scanned to the Defendant at the branch it was submitted. That she was not at the branch where the letter of resignation was submitted. DW1, also stated that she did not state that termination was due to non-performance or unsatisfactory performance. The reason for termination was not stated. DW1, agree that termination can be by giving one month notice or salary in lieu of notice. DW1, insisted that CW1J is condition of service. DW1 stated it is not correct to state that the Claimant cannot be terminated until she reached 60 years of age. The claimant is indebted to the bank. Her account was in debit because of commercial loan she took from the bank. Her indebtedness was deducted. THE DEFENDANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The defendant’s final written address dated 26/4/18 and filed on the same day, was vide order of the Court made on 28/5/18 deemed properly filed and served out of time. In adumbration before the court Santos Enejo, Esq; Counsel for the Defendant adopted the final written address as his argument on the matter. In the written address three issues were formulated for determination and another issue was submitted in the alternative to issue two. They are: 1. Whether from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case, the defendant could be said to have breached the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant, particularly terms and conditions for termination of employment of the claimant as contained in her offer letter dated the 4th day of December, 2007. 2. Whether from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case, the claimant’s claims, as presently constituted, are not speculative and indeed an afterthought? OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE ‘‘Whether having regards to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the claimant has proved her claim so as entitle her to Judgment’’. 3. Whether the claimant is entitle to reliefs f and g in the circumstances. ARGUMENT ON ISSUE ONE ‘‘Whether from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case, the defendant could be said to have breached the terms and conditions of employment of the Claimant, particularly terms and conditions for termination of employment of the Claimant as contained in her offer letter dated the 4th day of December, 2007’’. It is submitted by Counsel that the answer to the above poser is in the negative. The defendant did not in any way whatsoever breach the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant, rather, the defendant religiously complied with the said terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment particularly terms and conditions for termination of the claimant’s employment. It is the contention of counsel that it is apparent from Reliefs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) that the Claimant is fully aware of the fact that she cannot ask for reinstatement. One then wonders what informed the request for payment of her salaries from June 2016 to August 2042 as well as her retirement service earnings for the same period. According to Counsel the question that readily comes to mind is, how did the Claimant arrive at the figures in respect of her imagined earnings? After all, she would have been entitled to some promotions in those years and so the parameters for determining her service earning would have had some variations. This question also arises with respect to her so-called retirement service earnings i.e Relief (e). Counsel submitted that contrary to the misconceived position and claims of the claimant in her statement of facts before this Honourable Court, the defendant complied with the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant to the letters especially as it relates to termination of employment between the parties. In support of this submission Counsel placed reliance on item 3 of the claimant’s offer letter (exhibit CW1C 1-2). It is the contention of counsel that the conditions as set out in exhibit CW1C 1-2, the Claimant’s offer letter are mutually binding on the parties i.e. the claimant and defendant, so that where cessation/termination of employment is emanating from the claimant (otherwise known as resignation of employment) the claimant is equally bound to comply with the conditions stated therein especially as it relates to notice or salary in lieu of notice. Similarly the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure which the claimant places heavy reliance on at page 58 equally captured the position above. It is also submitted that the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure went further to provide in the said page 58 made provision for one Month notice or payment in lieu of notice. It is submitted that a clear perusal of the claimant’s statement of account particularly the entries as contained on the 8th day of June, 2016, shows clearly that aside other entitlements/benefit paid to the claimant by the defendant, the defendant paid the claimant her one moth basic salary in lieu of notice as provided by the claimant’s offer letter as well as the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, which is no doubt the sum of N89,345.68 (Eight nine thousand, three hundred and forty five naira, sixty eight kobo). This much was admitted by the claimant in paragraph 24 of her witness statement on oath. According to counsel the one month salary was arrived at after dividing the claimant’s annual salary of the sum of N1,072,148.16k (One Million, Seventy Two Thousand, One Hundred and Forty Eight Naira, Sixteen Kobo) by twelve. The amount is as contained in the letter of promotion dated the 11th day of July, 2013. Counsel contended the termination of appointment of the claimant’s employment having been in line with offer of appointment exhibit CW1C 1-2 and the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and procedure exhibit CW1J, the termination of the employee’s employment in this regard cannot be said to be wrongful. On this point Counsel cited the case of The West African Examination Council vs. Felix Iwarue Oshionebo (2007) ALL FWLR (Pt. 370) pg.1501 at 1512 Paras. E-F. Arising from the foregoing authority, Counsel submitted that the defendant having complied duly with the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment especially with respect to termination of her employment, the said termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant on the 27th day of May, 2016, cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be wrongful. In other words, the claimant’s claims, as presently constituted herein, are totally misconceived and untenable in all ramifications. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and dismiss the Claimant’s claim in its entirety. It is the submission of Counsel that consistent with the above authority and assuming without conceding that the defendant breached the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment in terminating her employment, it is the submission of counsel that all that the claimant would be entitled to would be nothing more but her salary for the period of notice required to terminate her employment which by the terms and conditions of her employment as contained in her offer letter and the defendant’s Human capital Management Policies and procedure, is one month basic salary of N89,345.68 (Eight nine thousand, three hundred and forty five naira, sixty eight kobo). The said one month basic salary in lieu of notice, was no doubt paid to the claimant by the defendant as could be gleaned from the Claimant’s statement of account on the 8th day of June, 2016 which she took benefit of and appropriated same since that very day without any iota of complaint until now. Counsel submitted that the claimant has not in any way whatsoever discharged the onus on her by showing to this Honourable Court vide credible evidence the way and the matter in which the Defendant breached the terms and conditions of the Claimant’s employment while terminating the claimant’s employment. That being the case, counsel submitted that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant on the 27th day of May, 2016, was not wrongful at all, as the Defendant did not only comply duly with the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment, the claimant on her part has not, as required by the law, shown vide any credible evidence, the way and manner in which the defendant breached any of the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment. On this contention counsel relied on Bukar Modu Aji V. Chad Basin Development Authority & Anor. (2015) 3-4 SC (Pt.111) Pg. 1 at 16 paras 25-30. It is submitted by counsel that the totality of the claimant’s claims in this case, shows a clear and wide margin of misconception of the nature and legal consequences of the claimant’s contract of employment with the defendant which is otherwise known as a master and servant relationship, by the claimant herself. This is so because, while it is trite that in a master and servant relationship (like in this instant case) that he who hires can equally fire at will with or without any reason at all and that the Court cannot force a willing servant on an unwilling employer, the claimant in her claims before this Honourable court, is asking the court to declare the termination of her employment by the defendant as wrongful because she is yet to attain the compulsory retirement age of sixty (60) years, and also for the fact that the defendant did not declare her redundant nor give any reason for terminating her employment. It is the submission of counsel that the claimant’s claims as contained in her statement of fact filed before this Honourable Court is quite unmeritorious. What is more, it is a well settled principle of law that in a contract of employment without statutory flavor otherwise known as a master and servant relationship, the employer who is the master can terminate the employment of the employee who is the servant with or without any reason at all. On this point of law, Counsel relied on the case of Bashiru Atanda vs. H. Saffeiddine Transport Ltd. (2008) All FWLR (Pt.401) Pg. 985 at 996 Paras E-F and 997 Paras E-F. Counsel submitted that what is left to be added here is the point that it is now axiomatic in law that even where per chance the employer breaches the contract of employment in terminating the employee’s appoint, the employee’s remedy lies only in damages, calculated on the basis of what the employee would have earned for the period of the notice agreed by the parties for ending the employment. On this submission Counsel also relied on the case of Bashiru Atanda vs. H. Saffeiddine Transport Ltd (supra) at page 995 paras B-E. counsel submitted that the claimant in this case had 8th day of June, 2016 as provided by the claimant’s offer letter as well as the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, been paid one month salary in lieu of notice among other entitlements. Counsel submitted that the claimant herein, no doubt, has missed the point in a very wide margin when she claimed that the termination of her employment by the defendant on the 27th day May, 2016 was wrongful because according to her, as a confirmed staff of the defendant, her employment can only be brought to an end upon the attainment of the retirement age of sixty (60) years by her. It is further submitted that the termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant was indeed in line and in accordance with the claimant’s offer letter as well as the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure hence it is obvious that the defendant on the 8th day of June, 2016, paid to the claimant inter alia her one month basic salary in lieu of notice. Counsel relied on the case of Rivers Vegetable Oil Company Ltd V. Mercy Egbukole (2010) ALL FWLR (Pt.544) Pg. 111 at 129-130 Paras F-B. Counsel also submitted that another misconceived aspect of the claimant’s claim as contained in her statement of fact particularly paragraph 14, is her claim that only way her employment with the defendant could have been properly terminated in accordance with the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, is by the defendant declaring her redundant and absorbing her in another department/function of the defendant. It is the contention of Counsel that this position/claim of the claimant is absurd, misconceived and does not in any way whatsoever represent the position of the provisions of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure on termination of employment by the parties. It is submitted that the claimant during cross examination admitted that there are other instances where an employee’s employment with the defendant can be terminated as provided by the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure. Counsel referred the Court page 61 of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, which the claimant relied on in making her claim above and submitted that in paragraph (b) of the said page with the sub heading “Summary Dismissal” it was stipulated therein that the appointment of an employee may be terminated by the Bank by summary dismissal as a disciplinary measure as outlined in the section on discipline. Owing to the adverse financial and other repercussions which summary dismissal may have on an employee, he may at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer or the relevant presiding Disciplinary Committee be given the option of resigning instead provided it is not against regulatory requirement. It is submitted by Counsel on the other hand, that the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure at page 47 i.e. the section on Staff Discipline, Article 111 stipulated that there are three aspects for discipline of staff which includes inter alia “Unsatisfactory or grossly inefficient job Performance”. It went on to list the types of disciplinary actions that can be taken by the bank against a defaulting staff. One of such disciplinary actions is “Termination of Employment”. It is the submission of Counsel that having set the records straight depicting that instances abound in the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure wherein an employee’s employment with the defendant can be terminated aside on grounds of redundancy as erroneously posited by the claimant. Counsel urged that the Court would observe that it is on record that even though the defendant is not obliged to give reason for terminating the claimant’s employment just like she did in this case, the defendant tendered in evidence before this Honourable Court mails from the bank to the claimant decrying the claimant’s unsatisfactory job performance and the need for her improvement upwards, which yielded no result. It is on this note that we submit, that by and large, the defendant did not in any way whatsoever breach the terms and conditions of the claimant’s employment as contained in her offer letter as well as the defendant’s Human capital Management Policies and Procedure in terminating her employment on the 27th day of May, 2016. As such Honourable Court is hereby urged most humbly to hold that the termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant on the 27th day of May 2016, is not wrongful hence the defendant as could be observed from the facts and surrounding circumstances of his case, complied religiously with the claimant’s contract of employment. Counsel urged this Honourable Court most respectfully, to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant and against the claimant. ARGUMENT ON ISSUE TWO: ‘‘Whether from the facts and surrounding circumstances of this case, the claimant’s claims, as presently constituted, are not speculative and indeed an afterthought? OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE: ‘‘Whether having regards to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case the claimant has proved her claim so as to entitle her to Judgment’’. It is the submission of counsel that without any fear of equivocation that just as was held by the court in the case of Bashiru Atanda vs H.Saffeiddine Transport Ltd (supra) at page 995 paras B-E, the totality of the claimant’s claims as contained in her statement of fact filed before this Honourable Court, is highly speculative and at the same time a perfect exhibition of afterthought. This is so because, in the first place, the claimant holds the erroneous belief (which is after all anchored on a wide speculation) that as a confirmed staff of the defendant, her employment with the defendant (a good instance of master and servant relationship for that matter) cannot be brought to an end until she attains the retirement age of sixty (60) years. This view she maintains even in the face of the clear provisions of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, at page 58, Article 1, which she even placed heavy reliance on. Counsel contended that the claimant’s claims as presently constituted is not only speculative but equally absurd in all ramification in the realm of master and servant relationship. Hence it is trite law that in a master and servant relationship, the master who hires can equally fire at will and no court of law can force a willing employee on an unwilling employer. On this proposition Counsel placed reliance on the case of Bashiru Atanda vs H. Saffeiddine Transport Ltd (supra). It is the contention of counsel that there is no better instance of a claim being an afterthought than in this case. This is because just as the Court would find, the said termination of the claimant’s appointment took place on the 27th day of May, 2016. On that same day, the claimant voluntarily tendered her resignation letter and persuaded the defendant to kindly document the resignation letter in her file instead of the termination letter for future reference purposes. It is equally on record, that the defendant did not only oblige the claimant’s request above, the defendant went ahead and paid the claimant all she is entitled to inclusive of her one month basic salary in lieu of notice on the 8th day of June 2016 and she drew down and utilized the money. To support the claim of afterthought the Defendant relied on the cases of Iloabachi V. Philips (2000) 14 NWLR (Pt. 787) 264 CA at 290- 291 Paras H-D, B.A Morohunfola vs. Kwara State College of Technology (1990) 7 SC (Pt.1) Pg. 40 at 64 Paras 15-20 and the case of Military Administrator of Benue State V. Ugbede (2001) 7 NWLR (Pt.741) 194 SC, where it was also held that an employee is deemed to have waived his right to protest or appeal against the termination of his employment if he has not exercised that right within a reasonable period of time after termination. Counsel also contended that the claimant’s claim in this case, equally smacks of abuse of the court process. This is so because just as was admitted by the claimant herself during cross-examination, it is evident on the claimant’s statement of account that she is currently indebted to the bank. What more could be a better instance of an abuse of court process than in this case where a claimant who is indebted to the bank and who had equally utilized and taken benefit of her entitlements paid to her by the defendant, is now coming to ask the Court to grant her damages against the same bank? on this submission counsel referred the Court to the case of Odiase V. Auchi Polytechnic (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt.547) 477 at 495. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the defendant and dismiss the claimant’s claims with cost for being highly speculative, an afterthought and as well, an abuse of the cost process. ISSUE THREE; ‘’Whether the claimant is entitle to reliefs f and g in the circumstances’’. It is submitted that relief (f) set out by the claimant is a request that the sum of Two Million Naira be paid to her being the cost of this suit. It is the contention of Counsel that this relief does not condescend upon any particulars because there could not be any. How could the cost of this suit before Industrial court be access at Two Million Naira? That is scandalous. At any rate, it is now ossified in law that the claim for cost of suit or professional or legal fees is alien to our jurisprudence and is therefore not grantable. On this submission Counsel relied on the Supreme Court in of Nwaji v. Coastal Services (Nig.) Ltd (2004) 11 NWLR (PT.885) PG. 552 at 568-569, Paras. Counsel also cited the cases of, S.PD.C, NIG v. OKONEDO (2008) 9 NWLR (PT.1091) PG. 85 at 122-123, Paras. H-D); IHEKWOABA v. A.C.B. LTD (1998) 10 NWLR (PT.570) pg. 590 at 610-611, Paras. H-A. AND GUINNESS (NIG) PLC v NWOKE (2000) 15 NWLR (PT.689) PG. 135 at 150, Paras. A-E. Counsel submitted on relief (g) is a claim for 20% interest on the judgment sum. It is clear that this relief is speculative as it was not within the contemplation of the parties that such an interest regime would apply on the judgment. The said interest rate is neither statutory nor has any evidence been led in justification of the same. It appears predicated on the ambition of the plaintiff that his case would succeed and that he would be the one to determine the interest rate unilaterally. Surely, this view cannot be correct from whatsoever angle it is appraised, it simply amounts to putting something on nothing as it neither borne out by the evidence before the court or any relevant statutory provision. In the final analyses, Counsel urged the Court to refuse and accordingly dismiss relief f and g as well as the entire suit for being frivolous unmeritorious and an exercise in gold digging. In concluding his submission Counsel urged this Court to dismiss the claimant’s case for lack of merit. WRITTEN ADDRESS OF THE CLAIMANT. ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION The Counsel for the Claimant formulated two issues for determination, to wit: 1. WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BREACHED THE LAID DOWN PROCEDURE FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE CLAIMANT’[S EMPLOYMENT. 2. WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THIS SUIT ARGUMENT Issue 1 WHETHER THE DEFENDANT BREACHED THE LAID DOWN PROCEDURE FOR THE TERMINATION OF THE CLAIMANT’[S EMPLOYMENT. In arguing issue one, counsel submitted that the claimant herein was employed by the defendant via a Letter of employment dated 4th day of December, 2007 – Exhibit CW1C. It is also the contention of the claimant that the terms and conditions of her employment by the Defendant is as contained in the defendant’s Human capital Management Policies and Procedure dated 13th March, 2006, exhibit CW1J. That the Claimant while in the employment of the defendant her employment was confirmed by the Letter of confirmation dated 23rd April, 2008-Exhibit CW1D and she was also promoted via the Letter of promotion dated 11th July, 2013, exhibit CW1E. But, vide exhibit CW1I, and DW1F, the Claimant’s appointment was on 27th May 2016 terminated by the Defendant. It is the contention of the Claimant that the defendant did not adhere to the procedure as outlined in the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure in terminating her employment. Counsel referred to paragraphs 1-9 of the Statement of Facts. It is the contention of the claimant that the defendant failed to adhere to the specific requirement for the termination of her employment on the ground of unsatisfactory performance or reaching target. The reason being that her employment was terminated barely two (2) days after she was served with a Letter of displeasure and that the Letter terminating her appointment did not indicate the reason for termination as being unsatisfactory performance or target. If the termination is on this ground it should have been after three (3) months of the Letter of displeasure. It is argued by counsel that a claimant who sues for wrongful termination of employment has the onus to prove same by placing before the court the following: (i) That he is an employee of the Defendant; (ii) The terms and conditions of his employment; (iii) The way and manner and by whom he can be removed; (iv) The way and manner the terms and conditions of his employment were breached by his employer. To support this submission counsel relied on the cases of ZIIDEEH V. RIVER STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISION (2007) 4 MJSC 150 at 160 paras B-D; NIGERIAN ROMARFIAN WOOD INDUSTRIES LTD. (NIROWI) V.J.O AKINGBULUGBE (2011) 11 NWLR (Pt.1257) 131. Counsel submitted that in satisfying the requirements of the law in proof of the wrongful termination of her employment the claimant tendered her letter of employment exhibit CW1C 1-2; the letter of confirmation of her employment exhibit CW1D, the Claimant‘s letter of promotion exhibit CW1E. The Claimant further tendered the defendant’s Human Management Policies and Procedure – Exhibit CW1J in proof of the terms and conditions of her employment. It is the submission of counsel that in determining the terms and conditions of the employment of the claimant, regards must be had to all documents which form part of the contract of employment so as to determine the true intention of the parties. It is not the correct position of the law, as contended by the defendant, for this Honourable Court to be confined to look at only the conditions as stated in the letter of employment exhibit CW1C 1-2; this is even more so that the letter of employment incorporated the Human Capital Management Policy exhibit CW1J. In support of this submission counsel relied on the cases of IFETA V. SHELL PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD (2006) 7 MJSC 121; SHELL –V- NWAWKA (2003) 6 NWLR PT. 815, STRABAG –V- ADEYEFA (2001) 19 WRN 64 AT 79-80; CALABAR CEMENT CO. LTD –V- DANIEL (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.188) 750; ANAJA –V- UBA PLC. (2011) 15 NWLR (PT.1270) 377; EVANS –V- FALAIYE (2002) 46 WRN 74. It is the contention of Counsel that all the terms and conditions of employment of the claimant are specifically contained in the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy exhibit – CW1J. The claimant in stating that her condition of employment is governed by Exhibit CW1J relied on the provisions at page 1 Article 11 of the Defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure which states thus: ‘‘Information to all staff of the approved Bank Human Capital Management Policy as well as all conditions of service’’ Counsel urged the Court to note the phrase “all conditions of service” as used at page 1 Article 11 of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and procedure Exhibit CW1J. Counsel urged the Court to ascribe to the phrase its literal and ordinary meaning; it would therefore not be difficult for this Honourable Court to arrive at the unequivocal conclusion that “all the conditions” of employment of the claimant are to be found in the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy and Procedure. Counsel submitted that applying the method of construction of written document as enunciated by the courts as demonstrated in the case of RAJI-V- OAU (Supra) this Honourable Court would arrive at the irrefutable conclusion that ‘all the conditions of service’ as contained in the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, exhibit CW1J, supersede and enjoy primacy over and above the conditions of service stated on the letter of employment – Exhibit CW1C1. Counsel submitted that the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy and Procedure exhibit CW1J is a document before the Court, its content speaks for themselves. This Honourable Court must therefore reject the strenuous effort of the defendant to ascribe different meaning to its contents more so that the defendant relied heavily on same in her defence. On this submission Counsel relied on Section 128 (1) of the Evidence Act 2011 and the case of BALIOL NIGERIA LIMITED – V- NAVCON NIGERIA LIMITED (2010) 16 NWLR 619 at 622. Counsel further relied on the case of OGUNDELE –v- AGIRI (2009) 12 MJSC PT.1130 – 131. It is the submission of Counsel that the claimant pleaded copiously the specific terms and conditions relating to her tenure of employment by the Defendant. The claimant relied on pages 58-62 of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure wherein the conditions relating to the tenure and termination of the employment of the Claimant are outlined. Counsel submitted that the claimant went further to testify that the defendant before terminating her employment did not adhere to the procedure as outlined in the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, exhibit CW1J, in that the defendant did not declare her redundant, did not explore the possibilities of absorbing the her in other functions or have the her transferred to any of its subsidiaries. The claimant further testified that the defendant by terminating her employment for “services no longer needed” negated the permanent tenure and character of the claimant’s employment as the claimant was thirty three (33) years and nine (9) months as at the time of the termination of her employment by the defendant. It is submitted that termination of employment becomes wrongful where an employer did not follow the procedure set down in its condition of service in terminating the employment of an employment. On this submission Counsel relied on the cases of OSIANYA –V- AFRIBANK (2007) 6 NWLR (Pt. 1031); CBN-V-DINNEH (2010) 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 125. It is contended that the Defendant’s defence to all these material allegation is at best evasive, wobbly, a wild goose chase, full of approbation and reprobation as the defendant in one breath denied that the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure provides the condition of employment and in another breath sought to rely on same in defence of this suit. A party must not be allowed to approbate and reprobate. On this submission Counsel relied on the case of APENE –V-AILERU (2015) 24 WRN 1. The defendant in denial of the specific averment that the termination of her appointment by the defendant did not follow the procedure stipulated in the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure in one breath stated that the claimant performance on her expected target in the first quarter of 2015 was very low prompting the defendant to issue a letter of displeasure to the Claimant and that the letter of termination was issued after the claimant failed or refused to improve on her performance. It is submitted that even if the court is to believe that the employment of the claimant was terminated by the Defendant on the ground of non-performance, the Defendant still failed to comply with the procedure for the termination of the employment of the claimant on grounds of non-performance. Counsel draw this Honourable Court attention to pages 63-91 of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure which deals with staff performance appraisal particularly pages 65-66 which require that the Claimant ought to have been given verbal caution, first written warning which must have a life span of three (3) months, final written warning before termination. Counsel submitted that the claimant was handed a warning for unsatisfactory performance dated 25 May, 2016 and two (2) days later on the 27th May, 2016 was handed a letter of terminating of her employment in violation of the clear position of the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure. It is the contention of counsel that the defence put forward by the defendant that the claimant had tendered a letter of resignation and as such cannot be heard to complain of wrongful termination of her employment is quite unconscionable and must be rejected by this Honourable Court. Counsel submitted this Honourable Court must not give life to a document which has been shown to have been extracted from the claimant under the circumstances of helplessness and undue influence of the defendant to pay her full terminal benefits. The said letter of resignation is superfluous, ineffectual and without meaning since the employment of the claimant had already been terminated by the defendant. It is submitted that there is an abundance and incontrovertible evidence on record which show that the claimant was compelled to write the same letter of resignation after she was issued a letter of termination of her employment by the Defendant. Were the reverse the case (i.e the claimant resigned) the defendant would have been entitled from the claimant one (1) month basic salary in lieu of notice of resignation. Instead the defendant paid to the claimant, purportedly, one (1) month basic salary in lieu of notice of termination. It is the submission of Counsel that the defendant in his Final Written Address confused the provisions of page 58 Article 11 of the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure which deals strictly with “Resignation” which is quite different from “Termination”. The provision for termination of employment is outlined at page 61 of the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure. The Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure is already Exhibit CW1J is a document before this court and speaks for its self. It is further submitted that there is nowhere in the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policy and Procedure to show that the defendant was entitled to terminate the employment of the claimant by merely paying one (1) month basic salary in lieu of notice as contended by the defendant. It is the contention of counsel that all the cases cited by the defendant on this issue are quite irrelevant as the defendant has completely misconceived the facts and evidence in this suit and the reliefs sought by the claimant. Counsel pray this Honourable Court to dismiss the submission of the defendant in their Final Written Address since same are inapplicable and irrelevant to the facts in this suit. Counsel also pray this Honourable to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant by holding that the defendant failed to adhere to the procedure for the termination of the employment of the claimant as provided in the defendant’s Human capital Management Policies and Procedure. Issue Two ‘‘WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO THE RELIEFS SOUGHT IN THIS SUIT’’ In arguing issue two Counsel submitted that the claimant claim against the defendant all her salaries and allowances from 27th May, 2016 to the year 2042 when the claimant would have attained the age of sixty (60) years which is the mandatory retirement age of the claimant as specified at page 59 of the defendant’s Human capital Management Policies and Procedure. To buttress this submission reliance was placed on paragraph 13 of the Statement of Facts. It is the contention of counsel that In proof on this claim, the claimant testified that she was thirty three (33) years (9) nine months at the time of the termination of her employment and hence she had a total of twenty-six (26) years 3 months for her to attain the age of sixty (60) years; which is equivalent to 315 months. The Claimant further testified that her total net monthly salary and allowance as at the time of termination of the termination of her employment was N414, 650.1K hence the Claimant would have earned the sum of N130,601,781.5K as salaries and allowances while in the employment of the defendant until she attained the mandatory retirement age of sixty (60) years old. It is submitted that the claimant also testified that her monthly pension remittances as at the time of the termination of her employment by the defendant was N33,526.47K hence the claimant would have earned the total sum of N10,560,838.05K as her pension saving. Counsel in support of this referred to paragraphs 17-28 of the Statement of Facts. It is the submission of Counsel that the remedy of an employee whose employment has been wrongfully terminated is an action for recovery of damages. The measure of damages is not at large and is calculated based on the amount the employee would have earned under the contract for the period until the employer could have been lawfully terminated it. Counsel contended that this broad principle guiding the calculation of the damages recoverable by an employee whose employment was wrongfully terminated was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of NIGERIAN PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD –V- ADEWUNMI (19723) ANLR 870. Counsel further submitted that the broad principle of law on measure of damages was also explained by the Court of Appeal in the case of EVANS –V- FALAIYE (Supra), relying on the case of WESTERN NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION –V- ABIMBOLA (Supra), at 82 ratio 8. It is also submitted that there is nothing contained in the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure that empowered the defendant to terminate the employment of the defendant by paying the claimant one (1) month basic salary in lieu of notice. The judicial authorities cited by the defendant on measure of damages for wrongful termination of employment is only applicable where there is provision in the conditions of service for the termination of the employment by giving prescribed period of notice. On this counsel relied on the case of NIGERIAN AIRWAYS LTD. –V- AIYEORIBE (2000) 17WRN 40. Counsel also commend to the Court the opinion of the learned Authors of the books CHITTY ON CONTRACT (30TH Edition) Vol. 2 pages 1141 – 11143: McGREGOR ON DAMAGES (18th Edition) pages 1042 – 1052. Counsel contended that it is very clear from the facts in this suit that the Claimant is entitled to all salaries and allowances she would have earned had her employment not wrongfully terminated by the Defendant which is prima facie when the claimant attains the age of sixty (60) years. Counsel contended that the Defendant in a deft move to avoid the consequences of her wrongful termination of the employment of claimant asserts that the claims are after thought and that the claimant acceptance of the one (1) month salary in lieu of notice constitute a waiver. It is argued that this submission of the Defendant is completely at variance with the evidence led in this suit. Counsel submitted that the claimant in her pleading stated that upon the termination of her employment by the Defendant, the Defendant on the 8th June, 2016 credited her bank account as follows: (a) One month salary - N89,345.68k (b) Leave days to cash - N1,624,037.53 (c) Leave Allowance - N58,333.33k Counsel submitted the Claimant further stated that the sum of N89,345.68k paid into her bank account by the Defendant is a far cry from her entitlement given the terms of her employment and circumstances of the termination of her employment. On this Counsel referred to paragraphs 24-26 of the Statement of Facts. Counsel also submitted that the claimant further pleaded that her inability to commence this action immediately arose from her difficulties in securing services of a Lawyer given her economic circumstances arising from the wrongful termination of her employment by the defendant. On this Counsel referred to paragraph 30 of the Statement of facts. It is submitted that the Claimant in her Reply to statement of Claim further states that she never withdraw the said sum as alleged by the defendant as the defendant promptly converted the said money to offset the debt she owed the defendant. Counsel submitted that at the trial the Claimant tendered her Bank Statement of Account which was admitted in evidence and marked as Exhibit CW1G1-4 to buttress the fact that the claimant never accepted the payment and drew down from the bank account as alleged by the defendant. Counsel urged this Honourable Court to do a painstaking study of the Claimant’s Statement of Account particularly the transaction from 31st May, 2016 - 8th June, 2016. Counsel contended from the forgoing nowhere is the evidence to support the contention of the defendant that the claimant even accepted the one (1) month salary in lieu of notice. Counsel urged the Court to distinguish the facts and in this form the fact in the cases being relied on by the defendant. In these cases – ILOABACHI –V- PHILLIPS (2000) 14 NWLR (PT. 787) 264. MOROHUNFOLA –V- KWARA STATE COLLEGE OF TECHNOLOGY (1990) 7 SC (PT.1) 40, MILITARY ADMINISTRATION OF BENUE STATE –V- ULEGEDE (2001) NWLR (PT.741) 194 SC and ODIASE –V- AUCHI POLYTECHNIC (1998) 4 NWLR (Pt.547) 477- the employee Claimant went beyond merely accepting their respective terminal benefits but went ahead to formerly accept their termination uncontested and started benefiting from pensions before approaching the court. Counsel refer this Honourable Court to the case of NITEL –V- IKARO (1994) 1 NWLR (PT.320) 350 at 363 where it was held that a Plaintiff in an action for breach of contract of employment who protested his termination cannot be said to have waived his right even if he received salary in lieu. It is not also the law that a claimant employee who after having received his entitlement and later discovered that she has been short paid cannot approach the court for redress. On this submission counsel placed reliance on the case of OSU –V- PEUGOT (2002) 3 WRN 176. It is contended that for a conduct of an employee to amount to a waiver it must be positive and unequivocal. Counsel in response to the Defendant submission on cost of action contended that the defendant again misconceived the head claims F and G and went on a wide tangent to make irrelevant submissions relating to recovery of solicitors’ fee by a party in a suit. Counsel submitted that the Relief of N2,000,000.00 claimed is for the cost of this suit which this Honourable Court have the inherent powers and discretion to grant in deserving cases. See Order 55 Rule 1 of the Rules of this Honourable Court. Counsel also submitted that the powers of this Honourable Court to award interest is provided under Order 47 Rule 7 of the Rules of this Honourable Court. Counsel urged this Honourable Court to discountenance the submissions of the Defendant in respect of reliefs F and G as claimed. Counsel pray this Honourable Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant by holding that the claimant is entitled to all the reliefs claimed. In concluding his submission counsel urged this Honourable Court to uphold all the claims of the claimant and dismiss the defence of the defendant. COURT’S DECISION I have carefully and painstakingly perused all the processes filed in this suit, the written addresses filed by Counsel on both sides and the authorities cited therein. I have equally listened attentively to the oral submissions of Counsel in adumbration of their position in this suit. Counsel for the Defendant has formulated three issues for determination. While Counsel for the Claimant on his part distilled two issues for determination by this Court. However, having regards to the entire processes filed by the parties and the facts surrounding this suit, I am of the view that the issues formulated by the parties can be subsumed into a single issue, to wit: ’’Whether the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful and in breach of the condition of service’’. The claimant herein was employed by the Defendant via exhibit CW1C 1-2, a Letter of employment dated 4th day of December, 2007. While in the employment of the defendant vide exhibit CW1D, dated 23/4/2008, the employment of the Claimant was confirmed. Thereafter, vide Exhibit CW1E, letter of dated 11/07/2013, the Claimant was promoted. The terms and conditions of service of the Claimant is contained in exhibits CW1C 1-2 and CW1J, the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure dated 13th March, 2006. The employment of the Claimant was vide Exhibit CW1J, terminated via a Letter of Termination of her Appointment dated 27th May, 2016. The case of the claimant is that her employment with the defendant having been confirmed can no longer be terminated by the defendant until she attains the retirement age of sixty (60) years. Consequently, the claimant claims that the termination of her employment by the defendant on the 27th day of May 2016, is wrongful as the said termination was neither in line with the claimant’s offer letter nor the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure. And that she is entitled to be paid by the defendant all the salaries she ought to have earned from the defendant from June 2016 to August 2042, a period when she must have attained her full retirement age of sixty (60) years. On her own part, the defendant maintains that the terms and conditions for termination of claimant’s employment as contained in her offer letter were duly complied with by paying the claimant inter alia, her one month basic salary in lieu of notice as clearly reflected on the claimant’s statement of account which the claimant did not only accept but drew down on same without any scintilla of complaints since June 8, 2016, until presently. It is also the case of the Defendant that prior to the termination of the employment of the Claimant, the Claimant performed poorly in performance reviews in the first quarter of 2015 wherein the defendant communicated her displeasure to the Claimant. The Defendant further stated that the claimant upon issued Letter of Termination, she voluntarily sent in her Letter of Resignation. The claimant in Reply contended that the defendant failed to adhere to the specific requirement for the termination of her employment for unsatisfactory as her employment was terminated barely two (2) days after she was served with a Letter of Displeasure and that the Letter terminating her appointment did not indicated the reason for termination as being unsatisfactory performance and should have after three (3) months of the Letter of displeasure. The Counsel for the defendant in arguing the case of his client insisted that the defendant in terminating the employment of the claimant was not in breach of the condition of service or contract of employment. Counsel contended that the termination of the claimant’s appointment complied with due process since the defendant has paid the Claimant one Month basic salary in lieu of notice as stipulated by the contract of employment and which the Claimant is entitled to in law. Counsel cited numerous cases as noted above in support of his contention. The Counsel for the claimant on the other hand vehemently disagreed with the position of the defendant’s counsel. Counsel push forward his contention to the effect that the termination of the Claimant’s employment was in law wrongful due to non-adherence to the conditions of service and procedure laid down in the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure, 2013 of the Defendant. Counsel also denied ever accessing the purported payment of the basic salary paid into her account by the Claimant. Counsel contended that the Defendant misconceived the case of the Claimant, which is for payment of what the Claimant would have earned had her employment not have been truncated by the termination of her appointment. Counsel submitted that the cases relied upon by the Defendant are not relevant to this case as the facts are not on all fours with the facts of this case they are therefore distinguishable. Before determining whether the action of the Defendant in terminating the Claimant’s employment followed due process or not, it is necessary to resolve some preliminary issues connected to the issue of termination. The claimant has stated that the defendant hoodwink her to submit letter of resignation with a promise to pay her entitlements. While the defendant stated that after the letter of termination of appointment was issued to the claimant, she appeal to the defendant to allowed her to put up a resignation letter because she does not want the letter of termination to be in her record. According to the defendant the claimant was obliged with her request and the letter of resignation was documented. In law once letter of determination has been issued and served that has brought to an end the relationship of master and servant. However, it may be argued that if the letter of resignation is accepted by the claimant then there may be condonation. But, the evidence before the Court did not established that the defendant had accepted the letter of resignation. This has made the issue of resignation a moot issue it is not a live issue. I therefore discountenanced it. The letter of resignation was too late in the day to be of any effect or affect the determination of the claimant’s employment. The issue of letter of resignation is of no moment. Another question that needs to be trashed out is the question of condition of service governing the employment of the claimant with the defendant. The claimant’s position on this is that the condition of service is as contained in exhibit CW1J, the Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure of the Defendant which is the same with personnel policies manual. The defendant in one breath has denied exhibit CW1J as the condition of service governing the contract of service under consideration. The defendant maintained that the contract of employment of the claimant is governed by exhibit CW1C 1-2. However, in a twist the defendant has heavily relied on the content of exhibit CW1J, in establishing the case of the Defendant this is despite the initial denial of its applicability to this case. Generally, a contract of employment is an agreement between an employer and employee whereby the terms and conditions of employment are stipulated in the agreement of the parties. In the case at hand the agreement of the parties is as contained in exhibit CW1C 1-2. The condition of service may however be contained in several documents. Exhibit CW1C 1-2, clearly in clause 3 has made reference to personnel policies manual, which according to the claimant is same with exhibit CW1J, this claim has not been denied by the defendant. In fact the action of the defendant in relying on exhibit CW1J, has supported the claim of the claimant that exhibit CW1J is condition of service of the Claimant. Exhibit CW1J is a 91 pages document at page 1 it was stated that one of the function of the document is to serve as information to all staff of the defendant of the approved Human Capital Management Policy as well as all condition of service. This has proved beyond any doubt that in addition to exhibit CW1C 1-2, exhibit CW1J is condition of service governing the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant. In any employment contract condition of service is the bedrock of the contract of employment. Since exhibit CW1C 1-2 has incorporated exhibit CW1J as being part and parcel of the condition of the contract of service between the parties in this suit I have no hesitation in agreeing with the claimant that the contract of service under consideration in this suit is governed by Exhibits CW1C 1-2 and CW1J, respectively. I wish to restate that in contract of employment it is the applicable conditions of service or any other terms stipulated in the contract that must be referred to, and construed in resolution of dispute between the parties. In view of this, this Court is duty bound to restrict itself to exhibits CW1C 1-2 and CW1J in and not to look outside the conditions as contained or stipulated in the two exhibits. EJOWAN & 77 ORS. V DELTA STEEL COMPANY LTD (2013) 1 ACELR 18, MR. S. ANAJA V UBA (2014) ACELR 78, RAJI V O. A. U. (2014) LPELR 22088(CA) Coming to the main issue for determination, from the pleadings of parties what emerges is the fact that the claimant’s employment was terminated by the defendant vide exhibits CW1I and DW1F, dated 27th day of May 2016, the termination was on the ground that the services of the claimant are no longer required. However, according to the claimant the termination of her employment was wrongful as it was not done in line with condition of service as contained in the Human Capital Management policies and Procedure, which was given to the claimant and referred to in the letter of her appointment. According to the claimant the failure of the defendant to declare redundancy or place her on another job in other defendant’s businesses amount to breach of the procedure for termination of her employment. The claimant also stated that the one Month basic salary paid to her which she did not access was not what she is entitled to. The claimant asserts that she is entitled to payment of salary for the remaining period she would have been in service of the defendant if not because of the abrupt termination of her employment. To the defendant there has been total compliance with condition of service in termination of the claimant’s employment. This according to the defendant was done with payment of one Month basic salary in lieu of notice as provided for in the letter of appointment and Human Capital Management policy guidelines for staff. The Defendant in the defence put forward before the Court gave different reason for termination of the claimant’s employment which borders on unsatisfactory performance. The reason goes counter to what was adduced as the reason for termination in the exhibit CW1I and DW1F, Letter of termination. In cases of wrongful determination of employment it is mainly through the ‘contract of service’ or ‘condition of service’ that it will be shown or established whether or not the determination follows due process or not. It is also by the same documents that the nature and duration of service and the method to be adopted by either of the contracting parties when he/it chooses to opt out of the contractual relationship and the time at which notice may be given. In AMODU V AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR (PT.150) 356, the apex Court held that: ‘‘Terms of contract of service are the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination’’. It is to be noted that in the case at hand the claimant is insisting that the procedure for determination of her employment as set out in the conditions of service have not been followed and complied with by the defendant in determining her employment. While the defendant maintained that the Defendant religiously followed the condition of service in the letter of employment in terminating the Claimant’s employment. To resolve the impasse between the parties, it is apt at this juncture to consider the relevant provisions of the condition service so as to see whether there is compliance or infraction of the stipulations contained therein. Paragraph 3 of exhibit CWC 1-2 state as follows:- ‘‘You will be employed on probationary basis for an initial period of six-Months during which notice of termination by either party will be two weeks or cash in lieu. If at the end of the twelve months your performance is considered satisfactory, your appointment will be confirmed in writing, after which notice of termination by either party becomes one month notice or salary in lieu, or as may be subsequently prescribed in the personnel policies manual’’. Similarly the defendant’s Human Capital Management Policies and Procedure which both Counsel placed reliance upon at page 58 stated, thus: “(i) Once confirmed in the appointment at the end of their periods of probation, all staff become full time employees. Their employment is thereafter considered permanent and continuous until they reach retirement age. However before this time, cessation of employment may be initiated at any time by either the Bank or the employee, each party giving the other adequate notice in writing. There are also provisions contained at pages 58 – 62 of exhibit CW1J which are also worthy of consideration. It is patently clear from the content of exhibit CW1C 1-2 and the contents of pages 58 – 62 of exhibit CW1J, that there are ample provisions based on which parties to the contract of employment can end the contractual relationship between them. It can be discerned that any of the parties that wishes to opt out of the relationship can do so, in so far as due process is followed i.e the terms of the contractual agreement are duly observed and complied with. On probation or upon confirmation the relationship can be brought to an end by either party, by giving the other appropriate notice or payment in lieu of notice. There are situations where an employee has no choice than to relinquish his employment. This is where the employee has reached the compulsory retirement age or length of service. There are also situation where voluntary retirement is allowed, where an employee has served for ten years unbroken service or reached 45 years of age. The condition of service has also made provision for removal of employee due to disciplinary action as a result of misconduct. There is also provision for termination due to redundancy. From the letter of termination exhibit CW1I and DW1F, it is manifestly clear that the reason given for the termination of the claimant’s employment was that her services no longer required. Under the master servant relationship the master has unfettered right to terminate employment of his/her servant for good or bad reason or for no reason at all. Where reasons for the termination is given then the master will be bound to prove the reason for termination. In the present case since no reason has been given the law will not hold the defendant liable for non-proof of reason for termination. But, the termination must be in line with due process as contained in the condition of service. The case of the defendant is that the termination of claimant’s employment was in order as there has been compliance with the condition of service. While the claimant differs and argued that the termination was wrongful as she was not declared redundant. In arguing her case the claimant heavenly relied on Article 11(30 of page 61 of exhibit CW1J, provides as follows Termination a) Redundancy i. The bank may declare certain employees redundant whenever there are more staff of their categories than would be required to meet the Bank’s needs in foreseeable future. The Bank however undertakes to explore all possibilities of absorbing such employees in other functions where they may be required, or transfer them to such subsidiary and associated companies where vacancies may exist for personnel of their qualifications and experience. Ii. If after such search the Bank is unable to find alternative employment to redundant staff, they shall be given due notice of termination or salaries in lieu of notice as specified above The claimant insisted that the defendant breached the condition of service for not declaring her redundant and finding her another job within the businesses of the defendant. The above quoted provision of exhibit CW1J are plain, clear and unambiguous. The words therein says what they says. It is not part of the function of this Court assign or impute other meaning to words used in a document which were not meant for, doing so will distort the intention of the makers of the document. Exhibits CW1I and DW1F clearly stated in unequivocal terms that the termination of the claimant’s employment was due to services of the claimant not required. There is nowhere in the letter of termination where in was evince that the termination was due to redundancy. It is to be borne in mind that redundancy is a situation where there is involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess of manpower. See section 20 Labour Act. This provision is in consonance with what was provided at page 61 Artice ii(3) of exhibit CW1J. I have combed the entire evidence of the claimant and her statement of facts I am unable to find any credible evidence adduced by the claimant to establish case of redundancy. There is nowhere shown that the defendant has excess manpower and has declared redundancy. There is no iota of evidence showing that the termination of the appointment of the claimant was due to excess manpower. The claimant has not testified to the effect there are other employees of her category carrying same duties with her that made her service not required. In view of this finding it is my humble view that the claimant has woefully failed to establish case of redundancy. Therefore, the provision of Article ii(3) of page 61 of exhibit CW1J is not applicable to this case. I so hold. As pointed out earlier in this judgment, the situation in the present case is that of master and servant relationship. In which the master has unfettered right to do away with services of his servant at will provided there is compliance with the condition of service. The Courts have no power to impose or compel an employer to continue with the service of an employee that is not willing to work with. See WESTERN NIGERIA DEV. CORP V ABMBOLA 1966 1 ALL NLR 159 “ 160 – 161, CHUKWUMA V SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO OF NIG. LTD 1993 4 NWLR PT.289 512 @ 538, ADEBAYO V D. A. U. THCMB 2009 9 NWLR PT.673 585 @ 606-607. In KWARA STATE POLYTECHNIC, ILORIN & ANOR. V KAMARU GBADEBO SHITTU 2013 2 ACELR @ 62, the point was made that a master who no longer requires the services of his servant can call it a quit, at any time, and does not even owe the servant any explanation or reason to dispense with such a servant’s services, as long as he respects the agreed terms of the contract of employment by issuing a notice to that effect, or salary in lieu of notice. The Court of appeal, Ilorin Division, made it clear in the quoted case that the simple truth is that even where the master is out rightly mischievous and/or outrageous in the way he sacks the servant, there is nothing the law (and court) can do, in a situation that the service of the servant is no longer required by the master. The court cannot impose or force a servant (however willing) on an unwilling master. It is to be noted that the main aim and purpose of construction of document(s) is to ascertain the in real intention of the makers of the document. The Court is not entitle to add or subtract from the document. Where the words used in the documents are plain, clear and unambiguous the Court is duty bound to construe the document by giving the contents of the documents the literal and ordinary meaning of the words therein. Save where the interpretation may lead to absurdity. The real intention is ascertained by construing the document collectively and not disjunctively. The whole document must be construed to get the real intention. Applying the above principle of construction to exhibits CW1I and DW1F, the letter of termination and Articles of the Management Policy, it is clear that there are several means by which contract of service with the defendant can be ended. Either party is free by the condition of service to end the relationship by giving notice or payment in lieu of notice. It has been stated and restated time without number by this Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court in innumerable decisions, that a master or an employer is entitled to suspend/retire/terminate or dismiss his or its servant/employee’s appointment for good or bad reason or even for no reason at all. The right to enter and exit a master/servant relationship is a voluntary one. There is also free entry and free exit from same even in the unfortunate event where a party to such a relationship decides not to comply with the terms as agreed upon, no Court will compel compliance or order a specific performance of contract of service. See KATTO V CBN (1999) 5 SCNJ 1, IDONIBOYE-OBU V NNPC (2003) 1 SCNJ 87. Albeit, it is trite law that any of the parties to a contract of service can resile to bring the relationship to an end, such termination must be done in line with the provision contained in the agreement of the parties. Once there is compliance with condition of service an employee cannot be heard to complain of wrongful termination of employment. See AKINFE V U.B.A. PLC (2007) 10 NWLR (PT.1041) 185, SPDC LIMITED V OLANRENWAJU (2008) LPELR-3-046 (SC), ORGANS & ORS. V NIGERIAN LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS (2013) LPELR-20942(SC). Having stated the law as it is, it is without any doubt that the Defendant in this case has the requisite power going by the letter of employment and Management Policy and procedure, to determine the claimant’s employment by payment of one Month basic salary in lieu of notice this is contained in the condition of service exhibits CW1C 1-2 and CW1J. The claimant has argued strenuously that what she is entitled to for wrongful termination is salary for the remaining years she would have served had her employment not tempered with by termination. To buttress this point the claimant cited and relied heavily on NIGERIAN PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD –V- ADEWUNMI (supra), EVANS –V- FALAIYE (Supra), WESTERN NIGERIA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION –V- ABIMBOLA (Supra), NIGERIAN AIRWAYS LTD. –V- AIYEORIBE (supra). The defendant on the other hand maintained that the claimant is only entitled to one Month basic salary in lieu of notice counsel relied on several cases to support his position. I have read the cases cited and relied by the claimant, it appears to me that the claimant misunderstood the cases. What the Court decided in those cases is that where there was wrongful termination the measure damages payable is prima facie the amount that the plaintiff would have earned had the employment continued according to contract. But this is where the contract of service is silent on period of notice and payment in lieu. In the case at hand the condition of service of the contract of employment has copiously made provision for giving of notice and payment in lieu of notice. On this issue I am in total agreement with the defendant that the measure of damages to be paid to determine the contract of employment is one Month basic salary in lieu of notice plus whatever entitlement the claimant is entitled to. The position of the law is that the measure of damages recoverable for wrongful dismissal or termination is prima facie the amount the Plaintiff would have earned during the period necessary for the lawful termination of the contract. If, therefore, the employment, and the contract was wrongly terminated in breach of the period specified in the contract of service as the life span of the employment, then the measure of damages due would be payment of salaries due to the employment for the remaining period of the contract. In the case where the contract could be terminated by giving notice, the measure of damages due is the salary payable during the duration of the period of the notice. The description of an employment at common law as permanent or pensionable does not mean what it says in employment under the common law. It does not mean that the employment continues until when the reaches the retirement age. An employment under the common law like the one under scrutiny is determinable by notice or payment in lieu of notice. See ABUKOGBO V AFRICA TIMBER & PLYWOOD LTD 1966 2 ALL NLR 87, DANIELS V SHWLL BP PEROLEUM DEVELOPMENT NIG. LTD 1962 1 ALL NLR 19. As pointed out earlier in this judgment, a master has unfettered right to hire and fire for no reason or for bad. But this right must be exercised within the confines of the law. That is the condition of service must be followed to the letter for exercise of the right of termination to be valid. The defendant has averred that one Month salary in lieu of notice was paid to the claimant in line with the condition of service. The claimant on the other hand has admitted that her account was credited with certain money which were meant for One Month salary, cash for leave and …. However, the claimant averred that she never access the payment as the defendant deducted the said amount to dupery debt of the claimant. This piece of evidence which was covered by pleading was not shaken under cross-examination. It is also to be noted the payment was done as payment in lieu of notice for the determination of the claimant’s employment. The act of the defendant in effecting payment in lieu of notice to the claimant through her bank account has satisfied the requirement of payment in lieu of notice. Furthermore the claimant has acknowledge the receipt of the payment into her bank account. The payment of the one month salary in lieu of notice by the defendant to the claimant has determined the claimant’s employment with the defendant. Therefore, the determination of the claimant’s appointment followed due process. However, the assertion of the claimant that she did not access the money paid as payment in lieu of notice as the payment was according to the claimant converted to repayment of loan which she took while working with the bank cannot change the position. The reason being that the claimant has admitted being indebted to the defendant. Therefore, the defendant’s using the payment in lieu of notice to defray debt cannot be faulted. For avoidance of doubt the orders of the Court are: 1. That the Defendant can in law determine the employment of the claimant by giving one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice. 2. The payment of one month salary into the account of the claimant is sufficient evidence of compliance with payment of salary in lieu of notice. 3. The determination of the claimant’s employment followed due process. 4. The claimant has not establish case of redundancy. 5. The claimant’s reliefs f and g are not grantable since the main claims have not succeeded. At the end the entire claims of the claimant are not meritorious they are hereby dismissed. Sanusi Kado, Judge.