Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court on 22/7/15 and by his amended statement of facts dated 7/10/16 sought the following reliefs - 1. The sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty One Million Six Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six Naira and Thirty Four Kobo) as terminal/end of service benefits from the Defendant. 2. Interest at the rate of 28% (Twenty Eight Percent) on the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty One Million Six Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six Naira and Thirty Four Kobo) with effect from 5th June, 2015 till judgment is delivered in this suit. 3. Interest at the rate of 28% per annum for the balance of the loan facility obtained by the Claimant from First Bank of Nigeria Plc. with effect from 5th June, 2015 (the Claimant’s employment termination date) till whenever the said balance on the loan is paid. 4. The sum of =N=95,000,000.00 (Ninety Five Million Naira) as general damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract and wrongful termination, injury, emotional trauma mental and physical torture suffered by the Claimant. 5. Interest rate at the rate of 10% (Ten Percent) on the total judgment sum with effect from when judgment is delivered in this suit till the final and total liquidation of the judgment sum. The Claimant's statement of facts came with witness deposition, list of witnesses as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. Upon filing his amended statement of facts, Claimant also filed additional statement on oath and additional list of documents to rely on. The Defendant reacted as appropriate and filed an amended statement of defence on 23/9/15 along with a defence witness statement on oath, list of witness and list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The statement of defence was amended on 21/10/16 and same was accompanied by further witness statement on oath as well as list and copies of documents to rely on. 2. Case of the Claimant On 18/3/16, the Claimant opened his case and he testified as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness deposition dated 21/10/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 31 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C31. CW1 further adopted his additional statement on oath dated 7/10/16 as his additional evidence in chief and tendered 4 additional documents as exhibits. The admissibility of two of the documents were successfully objected to. They were rejected and so marked. The remaining 2 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C32 and Exh. C33 respectively. The case of the Claimant as revealed from the pleadings filed is that he was employed by the Defendant in 2004 via a letter of employment dated the 11/3/14; that he was a very good employee of the Defendant such that he won an award of meritorious and excellent service in 2014; that his performance contract for the later part of 2014 was defective and therefore he could not be rated properly as a result of the defects that were deliberately created in the contract by his superior officers; that as a result of the defective contract and appraisal he was wrongfully asked to proceed on performance improvement programmer (PIP); that he proceeded on compassionate leave when he lost his mother and later took his annual leave on 4/6/15 when his employment was terminated on the 5/6/15 in breach of his contract of employment; that the Defendant’s Board of Directors approved a policy of payment of terminal/end of service benefits or severance package for its employees in 2013; that since then all the employees of the Defendant that have left its employment have been paid the severance package; that he is also entitled to the payment of the severance package upon the termination of his employment, but that the Defendant failed or refused to pay him the said severance package; that the Defendant made an undertaking in 2014 to repay a loan facility of =N=15Million to First Bank from his terminal/end of service benefits and that the Defendant breached this undertaking by failing or refusing to repay the said loan from his terminal/end of service benefits. Under cross examination, CW1 stated that officials of MTN Multipurpose Cooperative Society are elected; that the election is conducted by the employees of Defendant; that it is usually free and fair; that Management of the Cooperative is an arm of the Welfare Department of the Defendant; that officials of the Cooperative Society are not compelled to take advice for Management of the Defendant; that he was elected as Financial Secretary of the Cooperative Society; that he resigned because of corruption in the Society; that he made a report about the corruption to the Defendant; that EFCC later investigated the corruption issues; that he was invited to make statement at the EFCC and that he partly knew of the outcome of the investigation of EFCC. The witness added that threat by Management of Defendant to him was verbal; that he did not make a report of the threat to Police or EFCC; that he does not know if any other person in his Department was asked to also proceed on Performance Improvement Procedure; that his eventual complaint was attended to but not resolved; that he did not proceed on the procedure; that he applied for compassionate leave via SMS; that he could not remember if he got a reply; that he did not need approval for compassionate leave; that upon termination of his appointment no amount was paid to my account; that his contract is personal between him and the Defendant; that the contract and the Handbook contain his salaries and allowances; that he is not under any bond to the Defendant; that by the termination he was left helpless; that he had no money to go to hospital and that the Defendant was not obliged to pay his rent or loan. In reexamination, CW1 testified that he refused to proceed on the performance evaluation procedure because he wanted to explore the available grievance procedure. 3. Case of the Defendant The defence opened its case on 4/10/17 when it called one Oluwayomi Onagoruwa as its DW1. DW1 adopted his witness deposition dated 23/9/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D4 respectively. In its defence the Defendant denied knowledge of the alleged corruption in the management of the affairs of MEMCOS, maintaining that MEMCOS is independently run by staff of the Defendant who are elected by members of MEMCOS as its officials. The Defendant maintained that the Claimant’s performance appraisal score was the true reflection of his performance and that both the Claimant and the Defendant agreed to the Performance Agreement with all the Key Performance Indices; that nobody in the service of the Defendant told or admitted to the Claimant or anybody at any time that the Performance Agreement or the Appraisal was defective and that the Claimant’s scores would be adjusted; that the said Claimant’s performance appraisal score deserved a Performance Improvement Procedure even after a review of the entire exercise upon the Claimant’s insistence. It is also the position of the Defendant that the Claimant’s contract was terminated in accordance with the employment contract and all other laid down procedures and that the Claimant is not entitled to terminal/severance package/end of service benefits beyond the amount already paid to him. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he joined Defendant in 2011; that he is not aware of arrest of Ex. Co. members of MTN Multipurpose Cooperative Society by EFCC officials; that MEMCOOPS was established by the employees of Defendant; that it is run and managed by the employees of Defendant; that he is not aware that Mr. Akintunde was sacked for corruption related issue; that he does not know Mr. Isiaka Yusuf; that he knows Linda Nwafor - formerly a Management staff of Defendant; that several staff of Defendant have resigned or have their employment terminated from 2013 and not paid any severance package; that he is not sure if Mr. Ipoki was paid any severance package in 2016; that he is not aware that First Bank granted a loan to Claimant and that he is not aware that Defendant undertook to repay the loan from the severance package of the Claimant; that the Claimant is entitled to compassionate leave and that he does not know anything about Exh. C30. 4. Submission of Counsel The 18-page final written address of the Defendant was filed on 2/1/18. In it, learned Counsel set down the following 4 issues for determination - 1.Whether the termination of the Claimant’s appointment was in accordance with his employment contract, 2. Whether the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant’s outstanding loan to First Bank of Nigeria Plc, 3. Whether the Claimant is entitled to terminal benefits in the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty-One Million, Six Hundred and Forty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred and Seventy-Six Naira, Thirty-Four Kobo) and 4. Whether the claim for general damages by the Claimant in the sum of =N=95,000,000.00 (Ninety-Five Million Naira) is justified or can be granted in the circumstances of this suit. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the contract of service is the foundation upon which any aggrieved party must found his case citing Western Nigeria Development Corporation v. Abimbola (1966)4 NSCC 172; that the contract of service in this case Exh. D1 makes provision for termination of the contract which the Defendant complied with; that by Clause 13.2 of the contract document, the Claimant was bound to obey all reasonable orders and directions and that the Claimant refused to obey an instruction to him to proceed on Performance Improvement Plan and hence the termination of his employment with the Defendant. Counsel prayed the Court to hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant was in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions. Counsel submitted further that the Defendant was not a guarantor of the loan taken by the Claimant from First Bank Plc; that indeed the Defendant was not a party to the loan agreement and could not therefore be made to pay same over to the First Bank. In addition, learned Counsel submitted that the claim for the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 as terminal benefits was not part of the contract of service entered into between the Claimant and the Defendant; that parties are bound by their contract and that all that was due to the Claimant had been paid to him. Finally, learned Counsel submitted that no wrong has been committed by the Defendant against the Claimant to warrant award of general damages. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. Counsel to the Claimant filed a 36-page final written address on behalf of the Claimant and set down 6 issues for determination. They are as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant’s performance contract or agreement for the later part of 2014 and the appraisal based upon the said contract were defective, 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the payment of terminal/end of service benefits or severance package by the Defendant, 3. Whether the Defendant did not breach the Claimant’s contract of employment, 4. Whether the Defendant made an undertaking to repay the loan that was granted to the Claimant by First Bank, from the Claimant’s terminal/end of service benefits or severance package and whether the Defendant breached the said undertaking, 5. Whether the Claimant was victimized and discriminated against by the Defendant and 6. Whether the Claimants is not entitled to damages. Learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant's performance agreement for the later part of 2014 was fundamentally defective; that it was made as such because the Claimant was opposed to the corruption in the Defendant's employee multi-purpose cooperative society; that the Claimant is entitled to terminal benefits for which there is a laid down formula for calculating same and which formula the Defendant did not controvert; that the Defendant did not deny the existence of the Defendant on payment of severance package to Defendant's former employees; that it was because the Defendant knew that the Claimant is entitled to payment of severance package that was why it undertook to repay the loan taken by the Claimant from the severance package; that the Defendant could not have undertaken to repay the loan from the one month salary in lieu of notice of about =N=400,000.00. It is the submission of Counsel that the Defendant was in breach of Exh. C25 which is the contract of employment of the Claimant which provides for 30 days written notice of termination but that the termination was said to be in compliance with a contract of employment dated 26/4/04. Finally, learned Counsel argued that the Claimant is entitled to an award of damages as a remedy for termination in breach of conditions of service; that failure to pay the Claimant his terminal benefits or severance package has caused him much hardship and discomfort; that the Court should consider the fact that he was unable to pay his rent and provide medicals for himself and members of his family as a result of non-payment of the terminal benefits. Counsel prayed the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 5. Decision Before I proceed to this Judgment in the main, it is imperative that I make a comment or two on the quality of some of the processes filed especially the pleadings. Pleadings are essential for proper adjudication of causes and matters. By pleadings, parties tell their stories for the Court to make sense from. Pleadings must ordinarily be drafted in compliance with some, if not all, of the rules of drafting. Bearing in mind that Drafting is essay in communication, Pleadings are expected to and must be drafted in such a way as to meaningfully communicate to not just the parties involved but also to the Court. For, it is then and then only that the Court will be able to discharge its adjudicatory responsibility to the parties in particular and the society at large in general. Pleadings ought and must be drafted in a way to lessen the onerous and demanding task of the Bench. It must not be done to complicate and add to the burden of Hon Judges. The statement of facts as drafted in this case leaves much to be desired. It has about 35 paragraphs. The paragraphs are so lengthy that many of them are confusing. I am constrained to chose paragraphs 13 and 15 as a reflection of what the learned Counsel drafted. They are as follows - ''13. The Claimant avers that immediately the said Mr. Olufemi Akinsuli resumed back in August, 2014 as the line Manager he abandoned the contract drawn up by the outgoing line Manager and drew up a new contract for the claimant for the remaining 5 months of the year 2014 in which he deliberately omitted the major key and generic performance arrears (KPAs) of the claimant such that the areas of duties that are usually continued in a standard contract of the claimant were deliberately removed from the contract by Mr. Olufemi Akinsuli so that the claimant could not be assessed and scored in these areas of his duties during appraisal. Even the KPAs that were not removed from the claimant’s contract drawn up by Mr. Olufemi Akinsuli were made unachievable by the said Mr. Akinsuli. For instance, the service legal agreement of the defendant provides that every purchase Requisition (requiring the Chief Executive Officer’s approval) must be approved and signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the defendant (CEO), the Chief Technical Officer (CTO) and the General Manager (GM) before converting it to a purchase order and each of these signatories has 48 hours within which to approve and sign the purchase requisition. The new contract drawn up for the claimant by Mr. Akinsuli was inconsistent and very contrary to the defendant’s official service legal agreement as it provides that each of the required signatories before a purchase requisition can be turned to a purchase order, must approve and sign the purchase requisition within 30 minutes instead of the 48 hours provided for each of the signatories by the service legal agreement of the defendant, a feat which is practically impossible, considering the very busy schedule of these signatories. The claimant shall rely on the contract drawn up for him in the first 7 months (January to July) of 2014 by the new line Manager that was transferred to head him in early 2014 and the copy of the contract drawn up for him by Mr. Olufemi Akinuli in the last 5 months (August to December) of 2014, at the trial of the suit. 14. ..... ..... ....... ........... 15. With the fundamental defective contract put in place for the claimant, the leeway was clear and prepared for the orchestration of the evil plan to deal with the claimant as Mr. Olufemi Akinsuli effortlessly appraised and scored the claimant 1.37 points for the remaining five months of 2014. Matters was (sic) made worst for the claimant when his department the Net-work group (NWG) failed to obey the directive of the CEO that a stated average rating should be used across all departments, which prompted a cut down of the appraisal scores of the NWG department. The total rating of the claimant for the 2014 appraisal became 1.92, a score that would eventually send the claimant for “performance improvement process” (PIP) which is a form of another probationary period for 3 months, a way to humiliate the claimant out of the Defendant’s employment. The claimant was denied his full yearly bonus for 2014 and his salary increment of 2015 as a result of the malicious contract/appraisal by Mr. Olufemi Akinsuli and Mr. Dennis Ebbah. The irony of it all was that the claimant had saved the defendant from spending the sum of N300 Million to pay for the various claims that were made on the defendant by its various vendors or contractors, for which he was well praised and appreciated by the Defendant. The amount that would have been saved for the Defendant would have been far more than N300,000,000.00 if not for the sudden interest that was developed by the Senior Manager of the claimant, Mr. Dennis Ebbah on the amount of one of the vendors who had agreed to accept the payment of the sum of N78 Million as against its claim of N190 Million that was negotiated by the claimant’s team in June 2014 and suddenly increased to N130,000,000.00 in December 2014 by Mr. Dennis Ebbah. The same thing also occurred with some other accounts. The claimant shall rely on the statement of account of reconciliation made by him and the correspondences on the recovery of the said amount by the claimant’s team on behalf of the Defendant and praises and appreciation poured on the claimant by the Defendant, at the trial of the suit. It was the in same 2014 that the claimant was given an award of 10 years of diligent and meritorious service by the Defendant in which occasion he was very much eulogized by the defendant. The claimant shall rely on the photograph of the plaque of award or the plaque itself at the trial of the suit. It was the same 2014 that the claimant’s rating in the years appraisal dropped abysmally to 1.92 points that dragged him to the “performance improvement procedure” (PIP) which led to the wrongful termination of his appointment''. Paragraph 13 is of 27 lines while paragraph 15 has 34 lines. Learned Counsel, with great difference, failed to exhibit the minimum requisite drafting skill expected of Counsel with respect to drafting of his pleadings. In a situation almost similar to the instant case, Abiru JCA in Agrovet Sincho Pham Limited & Anor v. Dahiru & Ors (2013) LPELR-20364 (CA) has this to say - ''Drafting is an important tool in advocacy. A solicitor who could not present his client's case clearly in the brief, if it is a case in the appellate courts, or in the pleadings, if it is a case before the High Court or Federal High Court, could not adequately represent the interest of his clients. An otherwise good case is destroyed and lost by bad pleadings ... Counsel should pay more attention to drafting as no counsel could be good and make marks in advocacy if he is poor in drafting mechanism." The drafting skills displayed by the Counsel to the Appellants bring to mind the comments of Aderemi, JCA (as he then was) in MV Arabella v. Nigerian Agricultural Insurance Corporation (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.791) 570. The learned Justice stated thus at page 582: "To say the least, the above five issues raised by the cross-appellant are very horrible. They do not indicate that a person with legal training has drafted them. It seems to me that an ordinary prose writer who has no learning in the profession of law will produce far better and knowledgeable issues than the above five issues. If the Profession of law will not be subjected to ridicule, I think counsel of the type holding himself out as representing the cross-appellant in this matter will do well to seek the assistance of able and well learned senior members of the Bar (and they are legion in Nigeria) to always help in vetting whatever processes he prepares before filing same in the Registry of any court." The point has been beautifully made by the appellate court. I would rather say no more. I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side of this case. I patiently heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered. I also heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this suit. 1. Whether the Claimant is entitled to severance pay from the Defendant. 2. Whether the Defendant was bound to pay the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant's loan to First Bank Plc. 3. Whether the Claimant has proved his claims to be entitled to all or some of them. A major issue of contention between the parties is the claim for payment of severance pay or terminal benefits. This fact is also reflected in the fact that the Claimant is not seeking a declaration that the termination of his appointment by the Defendant is wrongful. This is notwithstanding the fact that Claimant further seeks payment of damages for wrongful termination of his employment. Now was the Claimant entitled to be paid severance or terminal benefits? Exh. C25 is the contract of service between the parties. I carefully perused and evaluated the exhibit. I found no provision relating to payment of severance or terminal benefit to the Claimant. Learned Counsel to the Defendant submitted before me that parties are bound by their agreement and the applicable terms and conditions and that I should dismiss the claim for severance benefit there being no provision for same in the contract between the parties. That is a sound proposition of law and there are plethora of judicial authorities reiterating same. See lhezukwu v. University of Jos (1990) 7 SCNJ; Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Sax Nigeria Ltd. (1994) 9 SCNJ 1. In Union Bank of Nigeria Ltd. v. Professor Ozigi (1994) 3 SCNJ 42 & Osita. I v. Nanka Micro-Finance Bank Limited (2016) LPELR (CA). However, I found paragraph 23.1 of the same Exh. C25 instructive. The paragraph states that - No agreement varying, adding to, deleting from, or cancelling this contract shall be effective unless reduced to writing and signed by or on behalf of the parties. The imperative of provisions as this is inevitable especially in a corporate entity of the status of the Defendant. I conceive this provision within the context of communications which cannot but from time to time emanate from the Defendant to its workforce and which communication may add to or be designed for the welfare of the staff and the entire workforce. Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of any provision for payment of terminal benefits in the contract of service of the Claimant, is there evidence of the intention of the Defendant to make such payment or even evidence of actual payment of such benefits to former employee of the Defendant? The Claimant tendered Exh. C16. It emanated from Lydia Saint-Nwafor - Chief Technical Officer, Network Group of the Defendant. It was dated 1/11/13 and addressed to MTN Network Group. It was an e-mail '' ... announcing that the final decision has been made to outsource Field operations, Optimization and relevant supporting functions in NWG via a Managed Service contract with two third-party vendors''. In the 4th paragraph, Lydia Saint-Nwafor had stated thus - ''Furthermore, details related to the severance package and benefits approved by the Board of Directors and other outplacement support services will be communicated in due course. MTN HR is also working to finalise these in consultation with all relevant stakeholders''. I also found in addition Exh. C17 & Exh. C24 both dated 28/3/14 in which the Defendant made some payments to its ex staff upon cessation of their contract of employment. I should bring to the fore that the 2 latter exhibits were made subsequent to Exh. C16. In addition to all this, Exh. C32 a THISDAY Newspaper publication of 26/4/16 carrying a headline that MTN CEOs Were Paid N560m Severance Package After Fine is a further testimony to the fact that the Defendant had/has a policy in place of paying disengaged staff severance package or terminal benefit. I found from evidence led that the Defendant has a policy of paying severance or terminal benefit to its former employee at the point of disengagement. I further find that notwithstanding the content of the contract of service between the parties, the Claimant is entitled to be paid severance benefit. I resolve the first issue in favor of the Claimant and against the Defendant. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant was bound to pay the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant's loan to First Bank Plc. There is no controversy the fact that the Claimant while in the employ of the Defendant obtained loan from First Bank of Nigeria Plc. I find Exh. C18 as a letter of Confirmation and Undertaking in Respect of Zephanaih Ishie Staff ID Number 102604041504. It was dated 24/7/14 and written on behalf of the Defendant by one Oluwatoyin Rowland described as Reward Specialist. By the exhibit the Defendant confirmed that the Claimant was a permanent employee of the Defendant; that the Claimant has been in its employment for 10 years and 3 months and that the Claimant was on =N=495,805.34 salary per month. The exhibit also contained the following important provisions - ''We irrevocably undertake until we receive your instruction to the contrary to do the following: 3. To remit the employee's salary or such part of the employee's salary that is due to the employee to his salary account in your bank provided that he continues to be in our employment. 4. To notify the Bank within 14 days should any of the following events occur: a. Resignation by employee b. Dismissal or termination of employment of the employee c. Notice of voluntary or involuntary redundancy of the employee d. Early retirement, voluntary or involuntary by the employee 5. In the event that the employee ceases to be in our employment for whatever reason we undertake, upon receipt of a letter from you stating the amount outstanding on the facility, to remit to you the full amount of the employee's terminal/end of service benefits when he ceases to be an employee in accordance with the provisions of relevant laws. However in the event that such terminal benefits exceed the amount outstanding on the loan we shall remit only such part of the employee's terminal benefits as is required to repay the outstanding balance on the loan''. I have reasons to believe that the Bank First Bank Plc insisted on this undertaking as part of the conditions precedent to the Claimant accessing the loan in question. I dare say therefore that in the absence of such undertaking the Bank would not grant the facility in question. By Exh. C18 which was voluntarily made by the Defendant, the Defendant is under some obligations to the Bank. First, the Defendant is under an obligation to inform the Bank within 14 days should an event occur making the Claimant to cease to be a staff of the Defendant. Upon the Defendant terminating the employment of the Claimant did the Defendant notify the Bank as required? I find no evidence before me to that effect. In fact the available evidence is the effect that it was the Bank that communicated Exh. D5 to the Defendant asking the Defendant to make good its obligation respecting the loan granted to the Claimant. Now, is the Defendant bound to pay the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant's loan to First Bank Plc. The fact, as argued by the Defendant, is that the Defendant did not guarantee the repayment of the loan to the Bank but it only gave an undertaking respecting same. It is the submission of learned Counsel to the Defendant that not being a guarantor of the loan, it is not bound to pay the outstanding indebtedness on the loan. What then is meant by the word Undertaking? What does it really portend? What are the obligations of one who gives an undertaking? When used as a verb, to undertake means to take up, to agree, to consent and so on. On the other hand when used as a noun, undertaking is ''a formal pledge or promise to do something''. It means pledge, agreement, promise, oath, covenant, vow, word of honour, solemn word, bond, commitment, guarantee, assurance, warrant, contract'' See https//www.google/search?q=undertaking. Visited on 8/6/18. The undertaking given by the Defendant amounts to an agreement to do a particular act as contained in Exh. C18. A documentary evidence is much more reliable. See Osundina & Ors. v. Awoyale (2018) LPELR(CA). That undertaking is a word of assurance, a solemn word, an oath, a commitment and I dare say a guarantee. It is my holding that the use of word whether undertaking or guarantee is mere semantic. The effect is certainly the same. More often than not, the two words ae used interchangeably and I dare say that they often convey the same meaning and intention. In South Trust Bank & Ors. v. Pheranzy Gas Limited & Ors. (2014) LPELR-22340(CA) the Court of Appeal adopted the definition of Guarantee as given in Chami v. UBA Plc (2010)6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 474 that the word ''guarantee'' is a '' ... written undertaking (emphasis mine) made by one person to another to be responsible to that other if a third person fails to perform a certain duty e.g. payment of debt. Thus where a borrower i.e. a third party fails to pay an outstanding debt, the guarantor (or surety as he is sometimes called) becomes liable for the said debt." The effect or consequence of the undertaking given as per Exh. C18 is that the Defendant must fulfil all the obligations in that document it voluntarily made. If the Defendant had complied with paragraph 5 of its Undertaking (Exh. C18), the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant would have been fully paid. I hold that from the available evidence before me, the Defendant was bound to pay the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant with First Bank of Nigeria Plc. The final issue is whether the Claimant has proved his reliefs to be entitled to all or some of them. The first relief sought by the Claimant is for payment of the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty One Million Six Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six Naira and Thirty Four Kobo) as terminal/end of service benefits from the Defendant. In paragraph 30 of his Amended Statement of Facts filed on 7/10/16 Claimant averred that he was entitled to =N=20,776,518.84 as his terminal severance package/end of service benefits and =N=872,518.84 as his withheld bonus for the year 2015. In his additional written statement on oath of the Claimant deposed to on 7/10/16, Claimant stated on oath that there is a laid down formula for calculating severance benefit of staff and that the laid down formula is multiplying 250% of the monthly gross salary by the number of years of service of the staff concerned. The response of the Defendant to this averment is contained in paragraph 31 of its amended statement of defence. Defendant simply denied the assertion of the Claimant that he is not entitled to any end of service benefits and that the Claimant is put to the strictest proof of same. Aside from this mere denial, the Defendant led no evidence in support of its position. I have noted and brought to the fore in this Judgment, various exhibits attesting to the fact that there is a policy of the Defendant on payment of end of service or severance benefits to former employees. These have not in any way or manner been challenged or controverted by the Defendant. It is not enough for the Defendant to simply make denial and put the Claimant to the strictest proof of same. Indeed, I dare say that proof of the position of the Claimant is found in Exh. C16, Exh. C17 & Exh. C18. In much the same vein, the Claimant asserted that he was not paid his bonus for the year 2015. Again, the response of the Defendant is that the Claimant is put to the strictest proof thereof without more. This mode of traverse is not sufficient. If the Defendant paid same, all it needed do was to show evidence of such payment and that puts an end to the controversies. That was not done. I find this head of claim proved. Accordingly, the Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty One Million Six Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six Naira and Thirty Four Kobo) as terminal/end of service benefits and his bonus pay for the year 2015. The second relief is for interest at the rate of 28% (Twenty Eight Percent) on the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty One Million Six Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six Naira and Thirty Four Kobo) with effect from 5th June, 2015 till judgment is delivered in this suit. I perused and evaluated all the evidence led by the Claimant. I find no evidence led respecting the percentage claimed for interest in this case. It not clear to the Court how the Claimant arrived at 28% per annum as interest on the sum claimed and awarded as his terminal benefits and bonus for the year 2015. It is for a party seeking relief to lead sufficiently cogent and admissible evidence in support of his claims otherwise the Court will be at liberty to refuse same. In Monier Consruction Co. Limited v. Agbejure Enterprises Limited (2013) LPELR-21167(CA) the Court of Appeal per Eko, JCA held that pre-judgment interest is either statutory or contractual. The appellant having not proved that the pre-judgment interest he had claimed was either statutory or contractual had failed to justify his entitlement to that head of claim. There being no evidence led in support of this head of claim same is refused and dismissed accordingly. For the same reason as stated respecting this head of claim, the claim for interest at the rate of 28% per annum for the balance of the loan facility obtained by the Claimant from First Bank of Nigeria Plc. with effect from 5th June, 2015 (the Claimant’s employment termination date) till whenever the said balance on the loan is paid is refused and dismissed. I note in particular that the Claimant did not ask this Court to direct the Defendant to pay the said loan he took from First Bank Plc to be paid directly to the Bank. In fact the Claimant did not ask the Court to direct the Defendant to pay over his terminal or end of service entitlement to his account with the First Bank Plc pursuant to the undertaking of the Defendant to do so at the end of his service. The Claimant also sought payment of the sum of =N=95,000,000.00 (Ninety Five Million Naira) as general damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract and wrongful termination, injury, emotional trauma mental and physical torture suffered by the Claimant. The law is trite that parties are bound by their voluntarily entered into agreement and that the Court will respect sanctity of contract between parties. See Askpo v. Acess Bank (2015)LPELR-25845(CA). In much the same vein, in an employment contract parties are bound by the terms and conditions of engagement. The employment of the Claimant was terminated effectively on 5/6/15 by Exh. C13 also dated 5/6/15 allegedly with reference to a Contract of Employment dated April 26, 2004. Unfortunately, no such contract was tendered before me at trial. The only contract of employment document between the parties tendered and admitted is Exh. C25 dated 11/3/04. By paragraph 8.2 of that exhibit the Claimant is entitled to a 30 days written notice before his employment could be terminated. By Exh. C13, Claimant's employment was terminated with immediate effect without 30 days written notice as required by Ex. C25. Exh. C25 was made by the Defendant. Yet the Defendant failed and/or refused to follow the terms of engagement as stated in the same document. I find and hold that the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated and thus entitled him to damages. See Longe v. First Bank Nigeria Plc (2010)6 NWLR (Pt. 1189) 1. This Court has found and held here that the Defendant acknowledged the entitlement of the Claimant to terminal/end of service benefits. I find that the Defendant failed and neglected to fulfill its obligation under that exhibit by paying the terminal/end of service benefits of the Claimant into Claimant's account with First Bank Plc. It is my further finding that this also amounts to a breach of undertaking by the Defendant. Now, the Claimant has sought payment of general damages in the sum of =N=95,000,000.00. The law regarding award of general damages is clear. It is a type of damages which the law regards as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. By law, it is not expected to be specifically pleaded or strictly proved. Generally speaking general damages are meant to compensate the victim for the harm caused by the act of the party sued. 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). The Claimant had alleged that the breach of his contract of employment by the Defendant and wrongful termination of his employment caused him ''injury, emotional trauma mental and physical torture suffered by the Claimant''. Considering the entire circumstances of this case coupled with the attitude and conduct of the staff of the Defendant and the treatment meted to the Claimant I find and hold that the Claimant is entitled to general damages assessed in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 only. The Defendant is thus ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 as general damages for the Defendant’s breach of contract and wrongful termination, injury, emotional trauma mental and physical torture suffered by the Claimant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant succeeds in part as follows - 1. I find and hold that the Defendant was bound to pay the outstanding indebtedness of the Claimant with First Bank of Nigeria Plc. 2. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=21,648,576.34 (Twenty One Million Six Hundred and Forty Eight Thousand Five Hundred and Seventy Six Naira and Thirty Four Kobo) as terminal/end of service benefits and his bonus pay for the year 2015. 3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 as general damages for its breach of contract and wrongful termination, injury, emotional trauma mental and physical torture suffered by the Claimant. 4. All the sums due under and by virtue of this Judgment shall be paid within 30 days from today and shall thereafter attract interest at the rate of 15% per annum until final liquidation. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge