Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims On 11/4/14, the Claimant by her General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts sued the Defendants and sought against them jointly and severally the following reliefs - 1. Payment is for the sum of Five Million Five Hundred and Forty-eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty-two Naira Forty-Six Kobo (=N=5,548,622.46) being the Claimant’s total outstanding emoluments and severance package which the Defendants have refused, failed and/or neglected to pay to the Claimant and which sum is made up as follows - i. Management Staff entitlement on the basis of the years served =N=3,800,000.00 ii. Christmas Holiday Bonus for the year 2004 =N=140,000.00 iii. AIICO (% of Employer’s contribution for AIICO retirements benefits) Award for 15 years’ service. iv. January – December unpaid salaries. v. Leave Bonus. vi. Housing Allowance for 4 months January – April 2005. 2. A declaration that the Defendants purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment is wrongful, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. An order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimant to her position and her entitlements paid. 4. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to remain in her employment until she attains her retirement age and/or lawfully terminated/retires. 5. An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=50,000.00 being the Solicitors fees incurred in this matters. 6. Interest at the rate of 21% per annum from January 2005 till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 10% till the judgment sum is liquidated. 7. An order for payment of =N=500,000.00 as general damages. The Claimant accompanied her originating processes with a verifying affidavit, witness deposition on oath, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. Although all the originating processes and accompanying documents were dully served, the Defendants did not enter an appearance or file any defence. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant commenced her case on1/6/16 and testified in chief as CW1. Claimant adopted her witness deposition dated 11/4/14 as her evidence in chief and tendered 18 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C18. The case of the Claimant as revealed from her pleadings is that she worked for a total period of fifteen years with the Defendants Association and rose to the position of Head Chef which is a management position with the Association; that during the period of her service with the Defendants, she performed her duties so efficiently that she received several certificates of Award for satisfactory service as well as promotions; that she also attended some on-the-job courses and performed satisfactorily which also earned her certificates; that when she completed her ten uninterrupted years of service with the Defendant Association she was awarded a long service award/certificate and money paid to her for same; that in February 2004 she was promoted to the position of Head Chef which is a Senior Staff position and that because of her satisfactory performance on the job her salaries and allowances were increased from time to time. Claimant added that she was delivered of a baby boy on the 12/1/04 and had to commence her maternity leave from that date; that on the 6/2/04 she was recalled to duty and immediately went back to work on the terms that she could utilize them in future whenever the need arises; that she was later granted 10 days out of the 64 days left from her maternity leave to carry out the dedication ceremony in her Church; that the ten days leave were approved by the General Manager Rose Gregorite and my immediate Boss Mr. Andy Mitchell; that in October 2004, her baby took ill and was admitted in the Lagoon Hospital which is the Hospital approved for use by the Management of the Defendant; that the Hospital diagnosed mal-nourishment and underweight including other ailments in the form of boils all over her baby’s body and so was confined to the intensive care unit of the Hospital for seven days; that she was advised by the Consultants to keep an eye on her baby and consequently she could not be on duty and at the same time be in the Hospital; that consequent on the Doctor’s advice, she applied for the remaining days of her maternity leave by a letter which she personally submitted to her Manager in the office and the Manager confirmed receipt of same but did not confirm to her in writing the approval or refusal of the application; that she did not have to wait for a reply from her employers before she stayed back at home to take care of her baby because her Manager and other members of staff were already aware of her predicament. According to the Claimant shortly after she completed the utilization of the remaining Maternity leave days and resumed duties, she was asked to hold on because the Defendant claimed to have sent her a letter in December 2004 purporting to terminate her appointment under the pretext that she abandoned her job; that she was not given any written or verbal query over her absence from duty based on her application for leave in the year before her appointment was terminated and till date no letter of termination was ever given or served on her by the Defendants; that in February 2001 she was promoted to the position of Head Chef based on her competence on the job; that the termination of her appointment was not in accordance with the conditions stipulated in the Staff Handbook; that and even in-spite of that, she is entitled to all her benefits, severance pay, and AIICO contribution; that at the several settlement meetings held with the Defendant, the Defendant admitted liability and offered me =N=606,987.54 in 2010 and in 2012 she demanded for a reduced sum of =N=2,718,400.00 but the Defendant is yet to pay up till date. The matter was subsequently adjourned for the Defendants to cross examine the Claimant. Again, I should reiterate that none of the Defendants attended this Court throughout the period of hearing. Defendants were also not represented by a Legal Practitioner even though they were dully served hearing notices with proof of same in the Court's file. Pursuant to the application by learned Counsel and in accordance with the Rules of this Court, case of the Defendants was closed and parties directed to file their final written addresses for adoption. 3. Submission of learned Counsel The Claimant filed a 12-page final writ ten address. The lone issue set down for determination in it is whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to her claims in this suit. In arguing this lone issue, learned Counsel submitted that no query had been issued to the Claimant in the 15 years she worked for the Defendants; that the termination of her appointment was not in consonance with the Defendants' Employee Handbook in that Defendants did not comply with the disciplinary procedure as set out in same; that the Claimant is entitled to have her dismissal converted to simple termination of employment and that there being no defence filed, the Court should hold that the Claimant has proved her claims and be granted same. 4. Decision I have read all the processes as filed by the learned Counsel to the Claimant in this case. I heard the oral testimony of the Claimant in chief, watched her demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done so, I here adopt the issue set down by the Claimant for the determination of this case as follows - Whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to her claims in this suit. In the system of administration of justice as inherited from the British, the burden of proof is always on he who asserts. This burden must be discharged by credible, cogent and admissible evidence. In our system, a party suing is not permitted to rely on the weakness of the case of his adversary. A party suing succeeds or fails solely on the strength of his case. Indeed, failure to file a defence to a suit does not save the Claimant from discharging the burden of proof which continues to lie on him for all intents and purposes. Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of any defence in this case, the Claimant still remains under a legal obligation to prove her claims by credible, cogent and admissible evidence. The reliefs sought by the Claimant against the Defendants are mainly 7 in all. The first relief is for payment is for the sum of Five Million Five Hundred and Forty-eight Thousand, Six Hundred and Twenty-two Naira Forty-Six Kobo (=N=5,548,622.46) being the Claimant’s total outstanding emoluments and severance package which the Defendants have refused, failed and/or neglected to pay to the Claimant. This sum is said to be made up of the following i. Management Staff entitlement on the basis of the years served =N=3,800,000.00, ii. Christmas Holiday Bonus for the year 2004 =N=140,000.00, iii. AIICO (% of Employer’s contribution for AIICO retirements benefits) iv. Award for 15 years’ service, v. January – December unpaid salaries, vi. Leave Bonus. and vii. Housing Allowance for 4 months January – April 2005. Unfortunately, the evidence led by the Claimant did not support her claim under this head of relief. The claims for =N=3,800,000.00 as management staff entitlement on the basis of the number of years served and the sum of =N=140,000.00 as Christmas Holiday Bonus are not supported by evidence. It is not clear to this Court how the Claimant arrived at these figures. Secondly, Claimant sought payment to her of % of Employer’s contribution for AIICO retirements benefits, but failed to state how much was contributed by her employer and what percentage of same is due to her. The same is with respect to award for 15 years’ service. In much the same vein, the alleged non-payment of salaries from January to December as well as leave bonus are ambiguous in that the applicable sum is not stated. Finally on this relief, Claimant sought to be paid Housing Allowance for 4 months from January to April 2005 but failed to state how much is involved or due payable. I am constrained to comment inter alia in this case that learned Counsel must continue to bear in mind that a Judge is not an Advocate but an Adjudicator. It is for Counsel to diligently present his case by linking exhibits tendered to each head of claim. It is not the duty of a Judge to make the case of a litigant for him. To do so will amount to the Judge descending into the arena and putting on the garment of an Advocate. It amounts to a bad legal practice for a Counsel to dump exhibits on the Court hoping and/or praying that the Court should wade through them and attach each to the reliefs sought. This first head of claim is not proved by evidence. It is refused and dismissed. The second relief sought is for a declaration that the Defendants purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment is wrongful, void and of no effect whatsoever. In an employment relationship, there is free entry and free exit. Either party to same, both the employer and the employee, have the right to exit same at any time subject to giving the requisite notice or complying with the applicable terms and conditions of engagement. Except in respect of employment with statutory flavor, no Court of law will ordinarily declare a termination of an employment null and void and of no effect whatsoever. This is because such a declaration carries with it far reaching consequences. One of such consequences is reinstatement. To order a reinstatement of a disengaged employee will amount to forcing a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See Obaje v. Nigeria Airspace Management Agency (2013) LPELR-19958 (CA), Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd v. Ogboh (1995) 2 NWLR (Pt. 380) 647 @ 664 & Ziideeh v Rivers State Civil Service Commission (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554; (2007) LPELR-3544(SC). This Court will not make such a declaration. Indeed, no Court of law will make such declaration. I thus find and hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant is not null and void. As a consequent of this finding and holding therefore, I refuse to reinstate the Claimant to her position and order payment of entitlements. I further hold that the Claimant is not entitled to remain in her employment until she attains her retirement age as sought. In view of the foregoing, I find no merit in the case of the Claimant as presented same not having been proved by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. This case is thus dismissed in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge