Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimants approached this Court by their General Form of Complaint and statement of facts and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A declaration that the termination of the Claimants employment is unlawful. 2. An order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimants to their employment with Defendant and for the payment of all outstanding salaries and emoluments from the date of the purported termination till date. 3. Alternatively, for an order of this Honourable Court that the Claimants be paid their entitlements/disengagement benefits as former staff of Babcock University. 4. An order for One Hundred Million Naira (=N=100,000,000.00) as general damages against the defendant for the unlawful termination of the Claimants employment. 5. Cost of this action. The Claimants Form 1 was accompanied by a statement of facts, witness deposition, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. 2. Defence & Counter-claims The Defendant entered an appearance to this case on 29/1/14, filed its statement of defence together with all processes as required by the Rules of this Court and counter claimed as follows - 1. A declaration that the claims of the Claimants are defamatory to the good name of the Defendant as it is a Private Christian Institution. 2. An order of mandatory injunction stopping the Claimants from further defamation of the Defendant. 3. Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) as damages for the defamation of the good name of the Defendant. 4. Cost of the action. 3. Case of the Claimants The Claimants opened their case on 25/11/14. The called the first Claimant as their lone witness. He testified as CW1, adopted his witness statement on oath dated 7/11/13 as his evidence in chief and another deposition dated 25/6/14 as additional testimony. Witness also tendered 9 documents as exhibits. The documents tendered were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 - Exh. C9 respectively. The case of the Claimants as revealed from the evidence in chief of their sole witness is that the first Claimant had the authority of other Babcock University Security Officers to depose to the facts stated; that the Defendant in the name of Babcock University and that the University is owned and operated by the Seventh Day Adventist Church; that the Claimants are staff of the Defendant; that they were employed by Defendant as Security Officers and some of them had risen to Supervisory positions in the said Security Department; that they have been in this employment with Defendant for several years ranging from five years to over twenty years; that Defendant in total disregard of their long years of service purportedly terminated their employment on the 1/3/12 by public announcement and also refused to pay them their entitlements/benefits; that the Claimants approached Civil Rights Liberty Organization to represent them in this matter of unlawful termination; that the Civil Rights Liberty Organization did communicate with the appropriate authorities at Babcock University by writing to them and sought for an amicable resolution of the matter; that the Defendant on receiving the letters from Civil Rights Liberty Organization hurriedly paid the salary of the last month of work that the Security Officers worked and deceptively termed the monthly salary the security officers disengagement entitlements; that the Defendant wrote a letter to Civil Rights Liberty Organization deceptively claiming to have paid the security officers their entitlements whereas they never did and that the Defendant has persistently refused, ignored and or neglected to reinstate the Claimants to their positions as security officers and have refused to pay us our disengagement benefits. Claimants added that all effort to meet with the Babcock University authorities for adequate reinstatement/amicable resolution were resisted by the Defendant; that they have families and dependants who rely on them and who they took care of prior to this purported termination and this termination has really affected their livelihood; that the neglect, deprivation and humiliation meted out on them by the Defendant and the refusal to reinstate them or pay their entitlements have negatively affected and impoverished them and that it is in the interest of justice to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimants. Under cross examination, CW1 stated that he is 40 years Old; that he worked as Security Officer with the Defendant for 8 years; that he had staff identity card at the beginning but that while terminating his appointment Defendant asked the Claimants to submit their identity cards; that he did through clearance though was not issued any disengagement Form; that he was paid only a month salary which Defendant owed him after a year of disengagement and that he does not have letter of employment. The witness added that when he was employed he was being paid =N=7,500.00 as Asst. Security Supervisor; that Defendant later promised to give him a letter of employment that at the time his appointment was terminated his salary was =N=25,500.00 monthly; that he is giving evidence on behalf of 31 officers laid off; that some worked for various number of years and that his name is not included on Exh. C2 but included on subsequent letters. 4. Case of the Defendant On the 23/11/15, the Defendant opened their defence and one Agudah Joseph testified as its lone witness. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 29/1/14 as his evidence in chief and also tendered 5 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1 Exh. D5 respectively. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimants were daily rated staff and that after the termination of their employment they were paid in lieu of notice. Under cross examination, the witness testified that Claimants were employed as daily rated staff; that their income is based on the number of days they work in a month; that both letters of appointment and identification cards were not withdrawn from the Claimants; that he is not aware that some of the Claimants worked for about 21 years; that he is not aware that any of the Claimants worked for more than 10 years before their appointment was termination; that the Claimants were employees of the Defendant; that as daily rated staff Claimants are only entitled to a month salary in lieu of notice and that the Employee Handbook provides for entitlement of disengaged staff. 5. Submissions of learned Counsel Learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 19-page final written address on 4/4/17 in which Counsel set down the following 3 issues for the just determination of this case - 1.Whether the Claimants proved their claims against the Defendant. 2.Whether the termination of the Claimants contract of employment was lawful and valid and 3.Whether the Claimants are entitled to the reliefs claimed in this action. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that for the Claimants to succeed they must place before the Court their contract of employment and prove the terms breached by the Defendant, citing NDLEA v. Zakari (2015)7 NWLR (Pt. 1458) 361 and that the Claimants did not place any such contract before this Court; that the relationship between the parties was one of master/servant in which the master has the power to terminate a servant's employment citing Ningi v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc (1996)3 NWLR 250; that the Claimants have failed to discharge the burden of proof placed on them and hence not entitled to any of the reliefs sought. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimants and enter Judgment in terms of the counterclaim sought. Claimants' final written address was filed on 7/12/17. In it, 2 issues as follows were canvassed for determination - 1. Whether the Claimants are entitled to be paid all their entitlement benefits and re-instated back to their position and 2. Whether the determination of the Claimants’ employment was unlawful. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimants were staff of the Defendant; that under the Employee Handbook of the Defendant the Claimants were entitled to severance benefits and that the Claimants have proved their claims as required. Counsel prayed the Court to enter Judgment in favour of the Claimants. 6. Decision I carefully read and understood all the processes filed by both learned Counsel in this case. I listened attentively to the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. I also heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel at the time of adopting their final written addresses. Having done all this, I set down the following issues for the just determination of this case as follows - 1. Whether the Claimants have proved their case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. 2. Whether the Defendant has proved its entitlement to the counter claims sought against the Claimants. By the nature of our adjudicatory system, the Claimants in this case have the burden of proving their entitlement to the reliefs sought heavily placed on them. They are to discharge the burden by tendering credible, cogent and admissible evidence which evidence may be oral, documentary or both. See Section 131, Evidence Act, 2011.Thus, for the Claimants to be granted any of their reliefs sufficient evidence must be led in support of same. The case of the Claimants, in brief, is that they were disengaged employees of the Defendant and that they were entitled to some benefits having been disengaged. The reliefs sought by the Claimants are 5 in all. The first is for a declaration that the termination of the Claimants employment is unlawful. In an action for a declaration as in this case, the Claimants are expected to lay before the Court their contract of employment containing the terms and conditions of engagement. The Claimants are then expected to prove to the Court, how and in what manner the termination of their employment becomes unlawful. Claimants did not tender any contract of employment at trial. Indeed, out of the 11 exhibits tendered and admitted only Exh. C1a-Exh. C1d i.e photocopies of staff identity card of 4 of the Claimants have some semblance of utility in the employment relationship between the Claimants and the Defendants. Now, certain questions call for answer. For instance what are the terms and conditions for the engagement of the Claimants? Under what conditions could the Claimants have been laid off? Who had the power to lay them off? How was their disengagement by the Defendant in violation of the applicable terms and conditions of their employment? The Claimants failed to provide answers to these questions by not providing the terms and conditions of their engagement. The law is trite that where the court is called upon to make a declaration of a right, it is incumbent on the party claiming to be entitled to the declaration to satisfy the court by evidence, not by admission in the pleadings of the defendant, that he is entitled. See Ogundare JSC in Obawole & Anor. v. Williams & Anor (1996) LPELR-2158 (SC). That evidence required by law has not been provided here by the Claimants. I hold that the Claimants have failed to prove their entitlement to this head of relief. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. The second relief sought is for an order of this Honourable Court reinstating the Claimants to their employment with Defendant and for the payment of all outstanding salaries and emoluments from the date of the purported termination till date. Let me state for the sake of doing so that since it is the position of the law that except in an employment with statutory flavor the right and power of an employer to disengage any of its employees can hardly be contested. This is more so because there is freedom of entry and of exit into an employment relationship. Thus while an employee may exit same by resignation an employer may also exit same by termination of employment or outright dismissal of an employee. The proviso is that the terms of engagement must be complied with. Even where the applicable terms are not complied with, the only remedy against such an employer lies in damages rather than in reinstatement. See Ativie v. Kabelmetal (Nig.) Limited (2008)10 NWLR (Pt. 1095) 399. The reason for this is that a Court will not foist a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See Godfrey Isiewore v. National Electric Power Authority (2002) LPELR-1555(SC). Besides, I have no evidence before me to show that the Claimants ever worked for the Defendant after they were disengaged by the Defendant. Thus to make an order for payment of salaries and allowances as sought will amount to the Defendant being ordered to pay its former employees for services not rendered. This Court will not make such an order. I therefore refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof. The third relief which is in alternative is for an order of this Honourable Court that the Claimants be paid their entitlements/disengagement benefits as former staff of Babcock University. Now, what are the entitlements or disengagement benefits of the Claimants in this context? How much are they entitled and how did they arrive at such amount? Perhaps in proof of this head of claim, the Claimants tendered Exh. C9. That exhibit has the heading List of Babcock Security Officers Purportedly Disengaged. The exhibit has no date. The exhibit also has no signature. The exhibit was admitted at trial without objection, albeit wrongly. The law is trite that an undated and unsigned document is nothing but a worthless piece of paper. It has no evidential value. See Global Soaps & Detergent Industries Limited v. NAFDAC (2011) All FWLR (Pt. 599) 1025 at 1047. Though admitted, a trial Court is permitted to discountenance and expunge any wrongly admitted piece of evidence at the time of evaluation. See Olowoyo v. Ojo & Ors. (2011) LPELR-4504 (CA). I therefore discountenance that exhibit and expunge same from the record of this case. Claimants failed to lead evidence in support of this head. It is important to point out that it is not the duty of the Court to make a case for a litigant. The Court will also not act on sentiment or emotion but rather on hard core evidence in making a decision one way or the other. See Anambra State Environmental Sanitation Authority & Anor. v. Raymond Ekwenem (2009) LPELR-482(SC). I find no proof of this relief. I refuse and dismiss same accordingly. The Claimants also sought for an order for One Hundred Million Naira (=N=100,000,000.00) as general damages against the defendant for the unlawful termination of the Claimants employment. General damages as a form of remedy lies only when a litigant has successfully established a wrong committed against him. Thus, the law regarding general damages presumes damages as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. Once a wrong is established the need to prove general damages is dispensed with. General damages are compensatory damages for the wrong complained of. See UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC; Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100. See also Afolabi v. Ola (2016) LPELR (CA). Considering the finding and holding in this case thus far, it is apparent that the Claimants have not proved their entitlement to any of the reliefs sought. There is therefore no basis for this Court to award any general damages against the Defendant. Accordingly, I refuse and dismiss this head of relief as well. The second issue is whether the Defendant has proved its counter claim to be entitled to same. The Defendants sought the following counter claims 1. A declaration that the claims of the Claimants are defamatory to the good name of the Defendant as it is a Private Christian Institution. 2. An order of mandatory injunction stopping the Claimants from further defamation of the Defendant. 3. Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) as damages for the defamation of the good name of the Defendant and 4. Cost of the action. A counter claim is akin to a separate and independent suit of its own. The burden is therefore on the Counter claimant to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of its counter claims. From the evidence led by the Counter claimant in this case, no cogent and credible evidence is led in support any of the counter claims sought. In much the same vein, I dismiss in its entirety the counter claims of the Defendant/counterclaimant for failure to discharge the burden of proof as required. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimants in its entirety. I also in like manner and for reasons as stated dismiss the counter claims sought. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge