JUDGEMENT. The Claimant approached this Court via complaint dated 31/8/2017 and filed on the same day. The complaint was accompanied with Statement of Facts, Claimant’s Statement on Oath, List of Witnesses, List of Documents/Exhibits, and Photocopies of Document/Exhibits to be relied on at the trial. The Claimant vide this action is seeking for the following reliefs:- a) That the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment was wrongful, illegal, null and void. b) A DECLARATION that the purported Termination and Summary Dismissal are two different things just as Blood and Water a two different things and both cannot apply at the same time and circumstance as in this case. c) AN ORDER of this Honourable Court mandating the Defendant to immediately pay the Claimant special damages or the sum of Four, Million, Three Hundred and Eighty–five Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty One Naira and Four Kobo (4,385,851.04) Only being Eight (8) years Gratuity as stipulated by the Condition of Service of the Defendants and the Circular Letter of the Ministry of Labour respectively. d) AN ORDER that the Defendants immediately pay the Claimant Ninety-three Thousand, Eight Hundred and Fifty-five Naira, Twenty-four Kobo (N93,855.24) Only being Claimant’s unremitted arrears for One year from 1st June, 2016 – 31st May, 2017. e) AN ORDER that the Defendant pay to the Claimant the sum of Fifty Thousand, One Hundred and Two NAIRA Four Kobo (N50,102.04) Only being a 10% of the Claimant’s Annual leave grant from 1st June 2016 – 31st May, 2017. f) AN ORDER that the Defendants pay to the Claimant the sum of Forty-one Thousand, Seven Hundred and Fifty-one Naira, Seventy Kobo (N78,309.84) Only being One month salary in lieu of Notice. g) AN ORDER that the Defendants pay to the Claimant the sum of Ten Million Naira (N10,000,000.00) Only being General/Aggrades Damages for the hardship caused to the Claimant and his Family and other Dependents for wrongful termination of appointment. The Defendants with the leave of Court granted on 2/11/2017 entered appearance and filed joint statement of Defence which was accompanied by a written statement on Oath, Defendants list of Witnesses, Defendants list of Document and Photocopies of Document to be relied on at the trial. The Claimant also vide Order of this Court made on 6/12/2017 filed reply to the joint statement of Defendant’s Defence. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 6/12/2017, wherein he testified as CW1. In the course of giving his evidence is Chief, 14 documents were sought to be tendered in evidence. However two out of the 14 documents were rejected. The twelve documents admitted into evidence were marked as Exhibits CW1A, CW1B, CW1C, CW1D, CW1E, CW1F, CW1G, CW1H, CW1I, CW1J, CW1K, CW1M, CW1N. The Claimant also adopted his witness statement on Oath as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case. From the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath and the oral testimony, the case of the Claimant was that he was employed by the Defendants as a Cook from 22/12/2009 to 31st May, 2017 for a period of Eight (8) years where he worked under four (4) different Chefs while in the services of the Defendants without any conflict until when Chef Daniel was employed in year 2016, things then begun to turn soar in the Department. That because of turn of events, the Claimant had to complain to the Defendants. The Claimant stated that when the hatred, maltreatment and intimidation by the Chef Daniel to him worsen he complained by filing grievance form designed by the Defendants for that purpose, this was followed by a complaint letter which was submitted to the Defendants to intervene for peace and harmonious working relationship. It was the evidence of the Claimant that upon receipt of grievance form and letter of complaint, the Defendants suspended the Claimant instead of Chef Daniel (subject of the complaint in the name of paving way for investigation. According to the Claimant on 23/5/2017, the Defendants in collusion with Chef Daniel issued a letter urging the Claimant to appear before Disciplinary Panel of the Defendants on same frivolous vexatious and baseless allegations framed by Chef Daniel as follows:- i. Giving false information to the Defendants. ii. Disobedience to Management instruction. iii. Cross Insubordination and iv. Breach of Trust. (An accused person becoming a Judge himself in his own course). The Claimant stated that his employment was terminated by the Defendants based on the framed allegations. The Claimant testified that he told his Lawyer to challenge the action of the Defendants, which his Lawyer wrote a demand later and pre-action notice urging the Defendants to undo the wrong procedure taken to terminate the Claimant appointment. According to the Claimant on 27/5/2017 when he appeared before the Disciplinary panel with one Mrs. Erondu Goodluck, an Employee of the Defendants and testified. However, the panel refused to grant the Claimant adjournment to enable him bring his last witness to testify Mr. Fabian Ajaebu who was indisposed due to ill-health, rather than grant adjournment to the Claimant to call his last witness the Defendants rushed and terminated his appointment within 5 and 6 six days on the same frivolous accusations framed by the Chef Daniel who was subject of the Claimant’s complaint without following due process of law or the condition of service. The Defendants claimed that the Notice of termination was meant to be summary dismissal and as such Claimant not entitled to the one month notice or salary in lieu in lieu of notice, gratuity and other entitlement. According to the Claimant he was not summarily dismissed. His appointment was wrongly terminated. The Claimant stated that he is entitled to service gratuity and all other entitlement. The Claimant stated that the Defendants had deducted his salaries under the Pension Scheme and did not contributed its own source to be remitted to my PFA scheme 31/5/2016 - 30/5/2017 amounting to N39,855.24. The Claimant stated the Defendants are indebted to him the 20/6/2017 leave grant amounting to (N50,102.04). The Claimant also testified that he is entitle to one month salary in lieu of notice N78,309.84. CROSS-EXAMINATION Under cross-examination, CW 1, stated that he served for over eight (8) years with the Defendants and worked as cook. He also stated that he worked in one of the Departments of the Defendant and he is not the only senior officer. He also stated that he submitted his complaint letter to General Manager and after he submitted, the General Manager asked him to make adjustment. The General Manager was the Chairman of the Disciplinary Committee. He stated that he called Madam Goodluck Erondu, Fabian Ajaegu, Madam Goodluck Erundu and himself testified, but Fabian Ajaegu could not appear due to sickness and the person from F & B could not make it. The people he made allegations attended i.e Chef Daniel, Vivian and one Victor. According to CW 1, he proved his allegation except the one of N50,000.00 bribery. He also testified that he opened account with IBTC Pension Fund Administrator and the management paid to IBTC when he reach age of 60 to collect. He stated at the time of his disengagement from service he did not go for his annual leave. He stated that he read exhibit CW 1 A, paragraph 7.1.8 as at the time of his engagement he has not commenced his leave. He also stated that he was queried twice but he was not issued with query on ground of insubordination. The case of the Defendants. One Mrs. Ifeoma Oyin, testified for the Defendants as DW 1. DW 1, adopted her witness statement on oath deposed to on 9/12/17 and tendered ten documents as exhibits. They were marked as Exhibit DW 1 A, DW 1 B, DW 1 C, DW 1 D, DW 1 E, DW 1 F, DW 1 G, DW 1 H, DW 1 I, DW 1 J. the case of the Defendants is that on 19 /5/17, the Claimant submitted a grievance form along with a handwritten complaint against the Head Chef, Mr. Daniel, following which a date was fixed for hearing of the Claimant’s grievances by the Management. At the hearing, the Claimant in the process of stating his case made accusation of theft and fraud against his colleague. According to DW 1, these twist led to the General Manager to advice that the Claimant to re-submit a fresh complaint, listing out all the fresh allegations the Claimant raised along with his list of witnesses and supporting evidence. That after waiting for his complaint and receiving none, the Head Chef in a bid to defend himself filed and submitted a grievance form against the Claimant based on the earlier allegations made against him. Two other staff Mrs. Vivian Odum and Mr. Victor Akogwu mentioned in the Claimant’s complaint also submitted their written responses and denied any involvement. Based on the nature of the grievances levelled against the Claimant and his refusal to follow the General Manager’s earlier directive to re-submit his complaint, the Claimant was placed on suspension with full pay and given notice to appear and appear to depend himself. On 27/5/17, at the panel sitting headed by the General Manager, the Claimant and one of his witnesses Mrs. Erondu Goodluck testified. The head Chef and all parties were given the opportunity to be heard and cross-examined. But two others listed as the Claimant’s witnesses were not in attendance. It was stated that at the hearing Claimant while being cross-examined stated that he had no proof against allegations made against the Head Chef and Mr. Victor and pleaded for mercy. After hearing that spanned for a period of 3 days, management resolved that the Claimant acted in bad faith, exhibited acts of insubordination and insolence towards his superiors and fabricated false allegations against his colleague without proof. It was stated that at the time of his dismissal from service of the Defendants, the Claimant had not proceeded on his annual leave and is therefore not entitled to payment of leave allowance. On pension it was stated that Claimant has been duly advised to approach his pension fund administrator for resolution as the Defendants have been remitting funds for that purpose. It was stated under the contract of employment the Claimant is not entitled to any notice or salary in lieu of notice, because his employment was terminated vide summary dismissal. CROSS-EXAMINATION. Under cross-examination, DW 1, stated that she is not a party in this suit, but representing the Defendants. That she is in charge of staff matters. She stated that she did not know whether Claimant has complained against previous chefs before Mr. Daniel. She stated that she is not maker of document tendered in paragraph 5. She stated that the Claimant was terminated via summary dismissal as per exhibit CW 1 F. she stated that the Claimant is entitled to pension under contributory pension. It was stated that Chef Daniel filed grievance form but it was not tendered before the Court. In her evidence under re-examination DW 1, stated that she is representing the Defendants in Court as the Human Resources Manager. Written address of the Defendants. The Counsel for the Defendants filed joint written final address of the Defendants dated 1/3/18, out of time with leave of Court. On 7/5/18, Lydia Izom, Esq; Counsel for the Defendants adopted the joint final written address of the Defendants as his argument in this case. In the written address sole issue was submitted for determination, to wit: ‘‘Whether having due regard to the facts of the case, pleadings and evidence adduced, claimant’s case has merit and same deserving judgment’’. In arguing the issue for determination, counsel submitted that in an action for wrongful dismissal/termination, it is the duty of the Claimant to place before the Court, the contract of employment and prove that his dismissal/termination is in breach of same. On this contention Counsel relied on BUKAR MODU AJI VS CHAD BASIN DEVT. AUTH. & ANOR. (2015) 18 WRN 99, UNIVERSITY OF CALABAR VS ESSIEN (1996) 10 NWLR (PT.477) 225. It is the contention of Counsel that the Claimant tendered his contract of employment exhibit CW 1 B1-8, but failed to state how this said contract was breached by the Defendants. It is also submitted that the Claimant is required based on his reliefs to plead and prove his claim. The burden is on him to prove any declaratory relief sought to the satisfaction of the Court and must succeed on the strength of his case and nothing else. Court does not make declarations of right either on mere admission or in default of defence without hearing appropriate evidence and being satisfied with such evidence. On this submission Counsel relied on NIPOST V MUSA (2013) LPELR-20780 (CA). Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not led sufficient evidence to prove that his dismissal from the employ of the Defendants was wrongful and in breach of the terms of his contract of employment, this is because parties were all invited to state and defend their cases and also call witnesses where applicable, neither has he proved that the intent of the Defendants was to terminate his employment and not dismiss him as contained in the body of his letter. According to Counsel, the Claimant was made to face disciplinary panel following his failure to defend allegations he had made against some staff of the Defendants. According to Counsel the allegation of gross misconduct levelled against the Claimant are recognized grounds for dismissal of employee and no notice is required to be given. Counsel relied on AHMED V ABU & ANOR. (2016) LPELR-40261 (CA). Counsel submitted that at the disciplinary proceedings all the parties involved testified and cross-examined the management of the Defendant terminated the employment of the Claimant through summarily dismissal as contained in Clause 18.4 of the contract of employment governing the relationship between the parties. Under the said clause Claimant is not entitled to any notice or any benefit. It is the contention of Counsel that terms and conditions of contract of service are bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination. Counsel relied on RAJI V OAU (20140 22 WRN. On the difference between termination and summary dismissal, it is contended that there is no distinction between dismissal and termination of appointment. The Defendants insisted that Exhibit CW 1 F, is termination through summary dismissal following finding of disciplinary panel. Where the Claimant could not prove his allegation and pleaded for mercy, on this Counsel relied on exhibit DW 1 J1-11. On payment of gratuity sought by the Claimant, the said claim/relief must fail as same was not specifically pleaded. There was no proof of the claim. Counsel submitted it is trite law that special damages must be strictly proved through credible evidence. Reliance was placed on OGBONNA V OGBONNA & ANOR. (2014) LPELR-22308 (CA). It is the contention of Counsel that there is no evidence, particulars or document to prove his entitlement to gratuity nor has evidence been produced to show how he arrived at such amount of money. ONWUGBELU V EZEBUO (2013) 23 WRN. It is the contention of Counsel that exhibit CW 1 B1-8, does not provide for payment of gratuity to the Defendant. The question thus becomes where did Claimant get this issue of gratuity from? Claimant’s miserable attempt in pleading a purported ‘collective agreement and Federal Ministry of Labour remains the illusion that they are. It is simply wishful thinking. The Defendant has been more than explicit in disowning a purported collective agreement. Added to this, the said document are not before the Court as same were tendered and rejected and accordingly marked. On payment of unremitted pension arrears, it is submitted that exhibit IBTC- CW1 N1-3, clearly shows that the Claimant’s pension account was steadily credited by the Defendants and advise that the Claimant pursue his funds from the said pension fund administrator, counsel urged court to disregard the claim. On claim on leave allowance, Counsel referred to Clause 7.1.8 of the contract of employment and submitted that at the time of termination of his employment the Claimant has not commenced leave for 2016-2017 and as such is not entitled to the payment of any allowances in that regard. It is the contention of Counsel that the Claimant by reason of his being dismissed from the employ of the Defendants, is not entitled to any notice and counsel urged the court to so hold as Claimant was summarily dismissed on the ground stated in the letter of 31st May 2017 exhibit CW1 F. It is also submitted that Clause 18 of the Claimant’s contract of employment provides for termination of employment and the notices relating to same. Clause 18.4 provides that issuance of notice is not required. In the instant case claimant is not entitled to payment in lieu of notice. Counsel urged the court to disregard/discountenance the relief sought. On claim for general and aggravated damages, it is submitted that claimant is not entitled to it as there is no harm caused the claimant in anyway by the action of the Defendants neither has he suffered any loss. It is trite damages recoverable from contract of employment without statutory flavour is limited to the amount to be earned for the period of notice for the termination where so applicable. And such notice is not applicable in this case. GEGE V MANDE (2006) LPELR-7679 (CA). It is contended that the Claimant has not shown how his dismissal has caused him injury or personal loss as to warrant damages. It is the contention of counsel that the employment of the Claimant not being that with statutory flavour, the Defendants are within their right to end the relationship by summary dismissal. In this case the Defendant went ahead to give reasons for the said dismissal, after following due process. Counsel relied on MAJA V UBA PLC 2011 15 NWLR 394. It is submitted that the Claimant’s reply to the Defendant’s joint statement of defence was not admitted in this court. Counsel urged the court to disregard and strike out the said reply as same is weightless and of no value to the proceedings. In conclusion counsel contended that the Claimant has not adduced evidence to entitle him to reliefs sought. He has also failed to show contract of employment was breached by the Defendants. Claimant’s submission. The Claimant’s final written address was dated 30th March 2018 and filed on 12/4/18. In the written address Counsel submitted four (4) issues for determination, to wit; 1. ‘‘Whether there was a valid contract of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant’’. 2. ‘‘Whether the Defendants breached the contract of by terminating Claimant’s employment’’. 3. ‘‘Whether the purported termination is wrongful, illegal, null and void’’. 4. ‘‘Whether the purported termination is termination or summary dismissal’’. Issue one In arguing issue one, Counsel submitted that there is valid contract of employment, Counsel referred to Exhibit CW1B1-8 which contains terms conditions of service governing the contractual relationship and binding all the staff and the 1st Defendant with the 2nd Defendant, the General Manager. Counsel referred to page 1 of clause 3 of exhibit CW1A, CW1B1-8 which provide remuneration for the claimant. As at 31/5/17, when the claimant appointment was terminated his monthly salary was N72,048.61 and his monthly 10% monthly pension contribution was N7,821.27 deducted for remittance to STANBIC IBTC. On this counsel relied on exhibit CW1N1. Counsel also contended clause 7 provides for annual leave entitlement. Counsel submitted claimant is entitle to leave allowance having entered leave year by 6 months i.e from 22/5/2017 – 31st May 2017. Counsel submitted that in line with para 11.7 of contract of employment, the claimant filed grievance form. On collective agreement counsel referred to para 12.1 of the said condition of service which provide for variation of condition of service through collective agreement. Counsel also referred to clause 18.1 of exhibit CW1B1-8 and submitted appointment can be terminated by giving notice. Also clause 18.3 appointment can be terminated by giving notice. Counsel submitted that Defendants breached provision of notice or payment in lieu of notice, Clause 18.5. Counsel submitted claimant is entitled to salary in lieu of notice. Counsel submitted that in so far as there is no any evidence tendered before this Hon. Court that the Claimant had committed any of the alleged offences, he is entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice contained in sub 18.3 i.e N72,048.61 being one month salary in lieu of notice. It is also submitted that the applicable notice period detailed in 18.1 shall not apply where summary termination of this contract occurs for any cause recognized by law as sufficient. Counsel submitted the charges based on which claimant was disengaged were never framed by the management but by the Chef Daniel, the charges were never initiated by the Defendants after investigation giving claimant right to fair hearing, but rather by unit head on the 23/5/17, while the panel were to sit for the first hearing on 25/5/17. Counsel submitted the charges were not proved and the claimant was not given opportunity to defend himself against them. Issue two ‘‘Whether the defendants breached the contract by terminating the claimant’s employment’’. It is the submission of counsel that contract is mutual agreement voluntarily entered into between two adult persons that have binding force and enforceable by law. It is the contention of Counsel that the claimant worked for the defendants for over eight years under 4 chefs without a break and without rancour. The only times the claimant was ever cautioned was when he received an important phone call from his parents in preparation for his traditional marriage. The 2nd was the general query issued to all staff about dressing code according to the policy of the hotel. Reference was made to exhibit DW1A1 and exhibit DW1D1. Counsel contended that exhibit DW1B1 and DW1C1 are not known to the claimant as they were never endorsed by him. He is not a party to them. Accordingly they are presumed to be document manipulated by the defendants during the pendency of this suit which is an afterthought and thus not admissible in law. On this submission counsel relied on section 83 (1) (3) of the Evidence Act 2011. It is the submission of counsel that assuming but not conceding that the claimant refused to endorse and collect exhibit DW1B1 and DW1C1 dated 13/11/10 and 5/4/11, respectively, what action was taken against him for this action of insubordination. The burden is tilted on the defendants to prove these facts which burden was not discharged and the position of the law is that he who alleges without proof must fail. It is the contention of counsel that claimant followed due process in presenting his grievance according to the policy of the 1st defendant. It is also contended claimant proved all his allegations except bribery which is not done in the open. COURT’S DECISION After a careful consideration of the processes and submission of Counsel for the parties, the Claimant’s claims are principally for declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment was wrongful, illegal null & avoid, the purported termination and summary dismissal are two different things. They are not one and same thing. The Claimant is also seeking for payment of N4,385,351.04 being Eight years gratuity as stipulated by the condition of service of the Defendants and the circular letter from the Federal Ministry of Labour. He is also claiming unremitted pension arrears in the sum of N93,855.24 for 1st June, 2016 to 31/5/2017 Annual leave grant in the sum of N50,102.04, N41,750.70, N10,000,000 general aggravated damages and N1,000,000.00 cost of this action. The law is settled that parties are free to voluntarily enter into contract of employment. Once a contract of employment is entered into between parties certain rights and obligation accrues to the respective parties. The employer upon exercising the right to engage service of an employee, also acquire right to determine the contract. See IREM V O.D.C. (1960) 5 FSC 24, BABA V NCAT (1991) 5 NWLR (PT.192), 388. However, in determining the contract of employment the employer is duty bound to comply with the requirement of procedure for terminating such an action. See OBO V COMMISSIONER FOR EDUCATION. BENDEL STATE (1993) 2 NWLR (PT. 273) 46. Albeit, employment can be determined at any time for any reason or no reason at all. Such an action must conform to the manner warranted by the contract under which such an action is taken. NIC PRODUCE MARKETING BOARD V ADEWUNMI (1972) 11 SC 11, OLATUNBOSUN V NISER (1998) 3 NWLR (PT. 80) 25. Before determination of contract of employment the employer has unfettered right to suspend an employee for instance where the employee is to face an administrative tribunal or panel of inquiry to face charges of misconduct. In an action contesting the validity of determination of contract of employment, the law imposes a duty on the employee alleging breaches of the contract of employment to place before the Court terms and condition of the contract of employment and to provide in which manner the said terms were breached by the employer exercising power of determining of the contract of employment. Thus, the onus is on the employee to prove his claim on the validity or otherwise of the determination of his employment by the employer. This Rule is in accord with the provisions of Sections 131 and 132 of the Evidence Act, which places burden of proof on the party who asserts a state of affairs to adduce evidence in proof. See ANGEL SPANING & DYING LTD V AJAA (2000) FWLR (PT. 23) 1332, NITEL V AWKA (2006) 2 NWLR (PT. 964) 39, COLLEGE OF MEDICING V ADEGBITE (1973) NCLR 247 (SC). There are different ways of determining contract of employment. However, this depend on the condition of service or the contract governing the employment. There has been disagreement in the case at hand as to the type of determination of the employment of the Claimant. To the Defendant termination and summary dismissal mean same thing. While the Claimant maintained that there is a great difference between termination and summary dismissal. The Claimant argued through his Counsel that the use of the title ‘‘RE: TERMINNATION OF EMPLOYMENT’’ as per exhibit CW1F means that the Claimant’s employment was terminated and he is entitled to his gratuity and other entitlement such as annual leave grant or 10% of annual salary. However, the Defendants argued to the contrary. In order to resolve the impasse, I have perused the relevant provisions of the contract of employment exhibit CW1 B1 – 18. The provision of clause 18 of exhibit CW1B1 – 18 examined is very clear and unambiguous, it says what it says. It is patently clear that the clause recognized different modes of ending the contract entered by the parties. It is clear either parties have unfettered right to end the contract by giving the other appropriate notice at any time during the term of the contract as in clause 18.1. The employer may as per clause 18.3 determined the contract by giving notice:- 1. If the employment breach conditions of employment 2. Work performance unacceptable 3. The employee service incompetent 4. There is retrenchment or redundancy 5. The employee reaches 65 years of age. The employer can summarily terminate the contract if any cause recognized by law occurred. From the provision of clause 18 of the contract of employment three modes of determination of the contract are recognized and there is one that can be exercised by either party. While the remaining two can only be exercised by the employer. It is trite law that summary dismissal of an employee can be invoked in case of gross or willful misconduct. That is to say in such as acts that can bring the employer to disrepute with the public, insubordination, immorality or dishonesty or absent from duty. Gross or willful misconduct is any act which is outside the scope of duties of an employee and is prejudicial to the interest of the employer. SHUAIBU V NNBB LTD (1998) 5 NWLR (PT. 551) 582, BISHI V JSC (1991) 6 NWLR (PT.197)331, ANASAMBE V BON LTD (2005) 6 NWLR (PT.928) 650. To warrant summary dismissal/termination, it is sufficient if the conduct of an employee is one of such grave and mighty character as to undermine the relationship of confidence which should exist between employee and employer. See COOPERATIVE & COMMERCE BANK V NWANKWO (1993) 4 NWLR (PT. 286) 159, SULE NIG COTTON BOARD (1955) 2 NWLR (PT. 5) 17 (SC), AJAYI V TEXACO NIG. LTD (1987) 3 NWLR (PT. 62) 577 (SC), NWOBASI V ACB (1995) 6 NWLR (PT. 404) 658 (SC), UNION BANK V OGBO H. (1995) 2 NWLR (PT. 380) 647 (SC), USEN V BANK OF WEST AFRICA (1965) 1 a 4 NCR 244. Applying the principle of law enunciated in the above case laws, I have no doubt in my mind that exhibit CW1F1, the Claimant had his contract of employment summarily determined by immediate dismissal with effect from 31/5/2017, it is my finding that exhibit CW1F1 did not convey termination of appointment to the Claimant, it conveyed what the body of the document stated, it conveyed summary dismissal for the service of the Defendant. Having resolved the issue of the nature of the determination of the Claimant’s employment. The next issue to resolve is whether the determination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendants was properly done in line with the procedure for summarily dismissal. There is no dispute from the facts as disclosed by the pleadings of the parties. The Claimant was employed as a cook by the Defendants on 22/12/2009, vide exhibit CW1 B1 – 8. The Claimant served for a period of 8 years before his employment was determined by the Defendants on 19/5/2017. The Claimant filed grievance form complaining of the maltreatment and hatred meted to him by one Mr. Daniel the Chef of the Hotel, who is the Claimant’s Head of Department. That on 23/5/2017 the Claimant was served with exhibits CW1 E1, notice of disciplinary enquiry, requiring the Claimant to appear before the panel on 25/5/2017. On the same 23/5/2017, the Claimant was served with Exhibit CW1D1 letter of suspension. However, the panel did not sit on 25/5/2017. At the sitting of 27/5/2017, the Claimant and his accuser appeared before the panel of enquiry where he testified and cross-examined and one Mrs. Erondu Goodluck, also testified as one of the witnesses for the Claimant. It is in evidence that the Claimant in his evidence in Chief stated that he was not given opportunity to call one of his witnesses Mr. Fabian Ajaebu to testify in his Defence. The Claimant based on the proceedings of 27/5/2017, was summarily dismissed vide exhibit CW1 F1. The proceedings of the disciplinary enquiry was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit DW1 J1- 11 What needs to be determined here is from the facts of this cause can Claimant’s summary dismissal from service of the Defendants be said to be in conformity with laid down procedure or not. The Defendants in their joint final written address have strenuously contended that the summary dismissal of the Claimant was in Order in that the Claimant was given opportunity to defend himself but failed or neglect to call any witness in his Defence. Consequently, the punishment meted on the Claimant through summary dismissal was in Order and the Claimant is not entitled to any relief as per his claims. On the other hand the Claimant has vide his submission before the Court insisted that his disengagement from service by the Defendants was wrongful and invalid. As pointed out earlier in this Judgement the charges levelled on the Claimant that warranted conducting disciplinary proceeding and his subsequent summary dismissal from duty were based on gross misconduct, insubordination, and willful disregard of lawful instruction see exhibit CW1’E’. It is settled law that where a disciplinary committee sitting to hear any of the allegations of gross misconducts the employee is entitled to fair hearing by the investigative tribunal or Committee hearing the matter. O. ZOANA V PSC (1995) 4 NWLR (PT. 391) 629, ERAWODAKA V UBTHMB (1993) 5 NWLR (PT. 277) 590. The employee has a right to be given a proper opportunity to present his case in Defence. In contract of employment an employee must be heard before he is dismissed. ADEEKO V I. D. C. (1962) 1 ALL NLR 220. The law therefore requires an employer in conducting disciplinary proceedings to comply with the elements of the principles of Natural Justice i.e. no one shall be a Judge in his own cause, this is rule against bias, nemo Judex in causa sua, both sides shall be heard, Audi Altarem partern, hear the other side. See DEDUWA V OKORODUDU (1976) 6/10 SC 329, AKIN V STATE (1988) 3 NWLR (PT. 85) 729, BAMGBOYE V UNI ILORIN (2001) FWLR (PT. 32) 12. These principles are constitutionally guaranteed to be enjoyed by an employee undergoing disciplinary proceedings. See SALEH V MONGUNO V ANIETO (2002) FWLR (PT. 88) 587, LONG –JOHN V BLACK (1998) 55 NG 68. In the case at hand the Claimant vide paras 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 of the statement of facts and paras 3, 4, 5, 7, 15 of the reply to the statement of Defence, clearly stated that he was denied fair hearing by not allowing him to call his last witness to testify in his Denfence one Mr. Fabian Ajaebu, the name he submitted to the Defendants as one of his witnesses to testify before the commencement of the disciplinary hearing. It is interesting to note that the Defendants in the evidence before the Court admitted that Mr. Fabian Ajaebu, the Claimant’s proposed witness is their staff and was granted sick leave due to surgery he undergoes. In view of the state of the pleading I am of the view that the disciplinary committee was in a rush to dismiss the Claimant by denying him his right to call his last witness in his Defence. When the Defendants have acknowledged that the proposed witness was their staff and they are aware of his absence since they granted him leave of absence due to sickness. With the knowledge of the Defendants of the condition of the Claimant’s witness, the Defendants ought to have granted the Claimant adjournment so as to enable his last witness appear to testify. Having refused to grant adjournment, the investigation Committee has breached the Claimant’s right to fair hearing. It is to be noted here that the Court is not interested in whether the decision reached by the panel was right or wrong. The Court is only interested in seeing that no party is denied hearing. Once there is denied of hearing the proceeding no matter how well conducted and how sound the decision arrived at will come to naught. The position of the Defendants is made worst by exhibit DW1 J 1 – 11 , a close examination of the document will show that it was a document without a maker, though there is sign at the bottom of the document signifying that it was signed, at the same, there was no name of the maker of the document. In the circumstance the document though relevant has no evidential value. In law it is a worthless piece of paper. See JINADU & ORS. V ISRAEL ESURONBI-ARO & ANOR. (2009) 9 NWLR (PT.1145) 55, AMAIZU V NZERUBE (1989) 4 NWLR (PT.118) 755. Having found that the Claimant was denied the right of calling his last witness to testify in his Defence and exhibit DW1 J1 – 11 being a worthless piece of paper without evidential value. I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that the procedure adopted by the Defendants in dismissing the Claimant from service did not comply with the law. The proceeding violates rules of natural justice, the entire proceeding is therefore ultra vires, there is no disciplinary hearing as per as the law is concerned. However, I must quickly point out here that the fact that this Court has nullified the disciplinary procedure, this does not mean that the Claimant’s dismissal is nullified. The nullification of the disciplinary procedure does not also amount to reinstatement of the Claimant. This court can only declare the summary dismissal wrongful. This is because in a contract of employment of master and servant, the court cannot impose an employee on employer. All authorities are at ad idem that in a master/employer relationship court has no business to compel employer to retain the services of his servant/employee, that the employer does not want to retain. The rule that no Court can impose an employee on an employer is sacrosanct in master and servant relationship. The only remedy available to the employee is damages. See EWARAMI V ACB LTD (1978) 4 SC 90, ISIEVALORE V NEPA (2002) 13 NWLR (PT. 784) 417. The law is well settled as to the measure of damages Claimant will be entitled to in case of wrongful dismissal. The measure is the amount the Claimant would have earned had the employment continued according to contract where defendant had a right to terminate the contract before the end of term. See WASTERN NIG DEVE. COOPERATIVE V JIMOH ABIMBOLA (1966) NMLR 381, IMOLOAME V WARC (1992) 9 NWLR (PT. 265) @ 303. In the case at hand by virtue of clause 18 the Claimant will be entitled to one month notice or he will be entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. The next thing to consider is the claim of N4,385,351.04 special damages as Eight years gratuity. In law special damages is not granted for mere asking it has to be proved and the Claimant is required to provide the particulars. In this case apart from mere assertion there is no evidence in proof, there is also no particulars and how the Claimant arrived at the amount he is claiming. In the absence of proof, the Claimant has not discharged the burden of proof on him. The Claimant’s claim on gratuity failed and is hereby refused for lack of proof, as strict proof is required. See CHIEF OBONO EGOM & ORS. V MR. ENO OMINI ONE & ANOR (2006) 11 NWLR (PT. 1098), LC.C. V UNACHUKWU (1978) 3 SC 194. On the claim of N93,855.24 Claimant’s unremitted pension arrears for one year 1st June, 2016 to 31st May, 2017, when the Claimant’s contract of employment was determined. The Defendant in reaction to the Claimant’s claim averred that the Claimant is entitled to pension and he has been advised to approach his pension fund administrator for it. The pension Reform Act, does not envisage payment of pension directly to employer by employee. This means that the Court can only order remittance of the pension to the Pension Fund Administrator where the Claimant has his pension account. In HONK SAWMIIL NIG LTD V HOLF (1992) 4 NWLR (PT. 238) 673, it was held that as between an employee and employer, the onus is on the employee to prove that the employer, employed him in a stipulated salary and that he worked for the employer during the relevant period. It is for the employer to prove not only that he paid the employee his salary for work done by the employee in the relevant period, but also how much the salary that he paid the employee was. From the case law authority, the duty is on the Defendants, not on the Claimant to prove that the pension deduction contribution of the Claimant has been paid by the Defendants. It is the Defendants that has the duty to make the payment as such the burden of proof that payment was made lies on the Defendants. The argument of the Defendant that the Claimant has been advised to contact his pension fund administrator, as for the Defendants they have been remitting the pension contribution could not hold water as the Defendants have the onus to prove the remittance. The fallacy of the Defendants argument on this issue will become apparent upon careful perusal of Exhibit CW1 N1-3 which is a statement of account of the contribution so far remitted by the Defendants to the pension fund Administrator. It is clear from the exhibits that as at 19/6/2017, when the document was procured the last remittance was that of May 2016. This means that from 1st June, 2016 to 31st June, 2017, the Defendants have not remitted any amount to the pension account of the Claimant. In view of Section 57(a) of pension Reform Act, it is the Defendants duty to remit the pension funds contribution of the Claimant to the Pension Fund Administrator. Since the Defendants did not show this Court that all the Claimant’s contributory pension have been remitted to the Claimant’s PFA, the Claim on pension succeeds and is hereby granted. On the claim for payment of the sum of N50,102.04 being a 10% of the Claimant’s annual leave amount from 1st June 2016 – 31th May, 2017. The Defendants in answer to this claim averred that the Claimant had not proceeded on his 2017 annual leave and as such not entitled to payment of leave grant. Counsel for both parties relied on the provision of Clause 7 of Exhibit CW1 B1-8 the contract of employment by provision of Clause 7.12 annual leave entitlement accrues in a 12 month cycle period and such accumulated leave shall become due on the anniversary of starting date may be taken of a time convenient to the Claimant and the 1st Defendant should which affecting appointment be taken as a contract period of leave. I have searched the entire pleadings of the Claimant there is no evidence showing whether leave cycle date has been taken at a time convenient to Claimant and the Defendants. In the absence of such evidence, the leave cycle date will be the anniversary of the starting date with the date which is 22/12 of each year, with this finding the annual date of 2016 will be 22/12/2016 and for 2017 will be 22/12/2017 with evidence that Claimant has been paid his leave allowance for year 2016 in June, the Claimant is not entitled to any leave allowance for that year again. If the Claimant will be entitled to any leave allowance grant it may be for 2017 and since the accrual date is 22/12 as at 31/3/2017 when his contract of employment was dismissed the Claimant leave grant was not due. Even if Claimant is entitled there is no evidence to show that Claimant has complied with clause 7.14 by submitting necessary application at least 4 weeks prior to the intended date of leave. In view of the foregoing, I hold that the Claimant as at 31/5/2017 which his contract of employment was dismissed not entitled to any leave allowance grant as per clause 7.1.8 of the contract of employment exhibit CW1B1-5. On N10,000,000.00 General/Aggravated damages for hardship caused to Claimant and his Family, there is no scintilla of evidence produced by the claimant in proof, this relief must therefore fail for lack of proof. This claim seems to have overlooked the type of damages the Court can award in case of wrongful dismissal of an employee. In labour law the damages that can be awarded is the amount the Claimant will be entitled to for the period of notice. In view of my finding above the Claimant’s claim succeed in part. I have combed the entire processes contain in the case file and I am not able to find any evidence in proof of general aggravated damages. In view of my findings above the Claimant’s claims succeeds in part. For avoidance of doubt the orders of the Court are as follows:- 1. The summary dismissal of the Claimant from the service of the Defendants is hereby declared to be wrongful due to the denial of the Claimant to call his last witness to testify in his Defence at the disciplinary inquiry that culminated in the summary dismissal of the Claimant. 2. The Claimant is entitled to be paid by the Defendants the sum of N41,751.70 being one month salary in lieu of notice. 3. The Defendants are hereby ordered to remit the sum of N93,855.24 being the Claimant’s contribution pension deduction from his salary for the period 1st June, 2016 to 31st May, 2017 to the STANBIC IBTC Pension Fund Administrator where the Claimant is having his pension account. 4. The Claim for payment of N4,385,351.04 special damages for 8 years gratuity is refused due to lack of proof. 5. The Claim for the sum of N50,102.04 as 10% annual Leave grant is hereby refused for lack of proof. 6. N10,000,000.00 aggravated damages is hereby dismissed for lack of proof. 7. The cost of this action is put at the sum of N200,000.00 (Two Hundred Thousand Naira only) The terms of this Judgement shall be complied with in 30 days from today. Judgement is entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.