Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General Form of Compliant, statement of facts and all other frontloaded processes dated 20/3/15, the Claimant approached this Court and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. Declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. 2. An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of Two Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand and Four Hundred Naira (=N=2,678,400.00) to the Claimant as his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. 3. An order directing the Defendant to pay Two Million Naira Only (=N=2,000,000.00) to the Claimant as compensatory and special damages for the direct and consequential losses suffered by the Claimant during the period he was not paid salary. 4. An order directing the Defendant to pay Two Million Naira (=N=2,000,000.00) as general damages for the pains, suffering and loss of amenity suffered by the Claimant. 5. An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as legal fees to the Claimant’s Legal Counsel as legal services concerning this suit. The Defendant entered an appearance and filed its statement of defence along with all processes as mandated by the Rules of this Court. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 26/10/15 and testified as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness statements on oath dated 20/3/15 & 14/8/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 21 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted as exhibits and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C21. The case of the Claimant as revealed from the testimony of the CW1 in chief, is that he was an employee of the Defendant for eight (8) years, 2007 to 2015, when he tendered his resignation; that the reason for the resignation is that the Defendant did not provide basic amenities needed to work with and that he brought this action to claim his arrears of housing allowance, medical allowance, annual leave allowance, gratuity, 7 days leave per year and the salary for the month of March, 2014 in accordance with his job schedule and Defendant’s condition of service. Under cross examination, the witness testified that the Defendant was his employer; that he started to work with Defendant in January 2007; that his salaries were paid except for the month of March 2014; that the Defendant is owing me about =N=2.6 Million; that there is evidence that the sum claimed is due to him; that he was the Quality Assurance Manager of Defendant; that in that position he saw to the day today running of the Defendant respecting the quality of product being manufactured; that Exh. C6 was one of the reasons he resigned from the Defendant and that he gave the Defendant one month’s notice of intention to resign. Witness added that he returned the Defendant property in his custody; that he is aware that Defendant has a matter in Court; that he did not resign because of the matter in Court; that his employer is Tyonex Nigeria Limited and that the Defendant is the manufacturing arm of the Tyonex Nigeria Limited. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its case on 14/6/16 when one Alawode Abimbola testified as DW1. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 13/6/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 7 documents as exhibits. One of them was subsequently withdrawn. The remaining 6 were admitted and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C6 respectively. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant is not entitled to any of his claims; that his letter of resignation was not accepted because by his gross misconduct he was liable to be summarily dismissed in accordance with the rules and regulation of the Defendant. Hence, his resignation to avoid consequences of dismissal. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he was employed by Defendant in October 2013; that the Defendant pays housing allowance yearly; that the Cecil brand got spoilt because of electrification; that he knows the signature of the Claimant; that the Claimant resigned his appointment with Defendant; that the Defendant had some issues against the Claimant and Claimant quickly resigned to avoid being interrogated; that he could not remember the day that the Cecil machine got spoilt but it was before Claimant resigned and that none payment of Claimant’s benefit was due to compliance directives from NAFDAC and the Cecil brand machine issue. The witness added that the Claimant was employed as Quality Assurance by which he was to oversee everything relating to quality covering equipment and purchase of things required in the laboratory; that the equipment was purchased on Claimant's recommendation; that the Claimant negotiated the purchase of the equipment and certified the machine as being OK before purchase; that the Claimant is not entitled to any benefits and that the Claimant committed acts which could have earned him dismissal but he quickly resigned before Defendant took action. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel The learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 4-page final written address on 14/10/16 and canvassed argument on these 2 issues set down for determination - 1. Whether court will look outside the contract of service to decide the right of the Claimant and 2. Whether the claim of gross misconduct can deprive the Claimant of his entitlement. Learned Counsel submitted that while the Claimant maintained that he was employed by the Defendant yet he tendered the conditions of service of Tyonex Nigeria Limited a company different from the Defendant and that the Claimant did not lay any foundation for so doing; that oral testimony is not admissible to alter or add to the content of a document and that in the circumstances there is no condition of service guiding the working relationship of the parties before the Court citing Julius Berger (Nig.) Plc v. Nwagwu (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 995)518. Counsel further argued that the conduct of the Claimant amounted to gross misconduct and that it was to avoid dismissal that the Claimant resigned his appointment. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. On 5/10/18, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed his final written address and set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant had established contract between him and the Defendant, 2. Whether the Claimant has breached the contract of employment between her and the Defendant, 3. Whether the Claimant was guilty of any misconduct while in the service of the Defendant, 4. Whether the unchallenged, un-contradicted and uncontroverted evidence of the Claimant are deemed admitted by the Defendant and should be accepted and relied upon by the Court and 5. Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims and damages for wrong done to him by the Defendant. Counsel argued that the Claimant established the existence of a contract between him and the Defendant; that the Claimant was neither in breach of the contract nor guilty of any misconduct; that he was not issued any query while in the employment of the Defendant prior to the resignation of his appointment and that the evidence adduced by the Claimant remained largely unchallenged by the Defendant and should be accepted by the Court. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 5. Decision I am very conversant with the facts of this case. I read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on both sides. I have a clear understanding of the issues canvassed by both Counsel. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and watched their demeanor. In addition, I carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant was guilty of gross misconduct to deprive him of his entitlement. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. It was the evidence and argument of the Defendant that the Claimant was guilty of a gross misconduct which would make the Claimant liable to summary dismissal. The alleged act amounting to gross misconduct was the certification of a machine, (purchased by the Defendant), to be in a good state by the Claimant. The said machine was subsequently found not to be in such state. Aside from the testimony of the DW1 in chief there is nothing else in support of the assertion of gross misconduct against the Claimant. Learned Counsel to the Defendant had submitted before me that misconduct is what the employer defines or calls misconduct citing Oyedele v. I.U.T.H 6 NWLR (Pt. 155)194. I totally agree with that position. Same position has indeed been reiterated by the Courts in plethora of judicial decisions. See Adewunmi v. Nigerian Eagle Flour Mills (2014) LPELR-22557(CA). However, that position will stand in absence of any evidence from either side to the contrary. In fact that position as canvassed must fall like a pack of cards where evidence adduced by the employer does not support same. DW1 testified before me. It is part of his evidence under cross examination to the effect that the machine in question actually got spoilt due to electrification rather than the fault of the Claimant. Secondly, the Defendant tendered Exh. D6 in support of its case. That exhibit was from Integrated Electronics Company Limited the Company that installed the machine. It is part of the report of the Company as shown on the exhibit that ''User asked to operate the system. Leader Akinrefon able to operate successfully. Ok''. There was no communication to the Claimant that he committed act amounting to gross misconduct. Secondly, no panel was set up or inquiry made on the alleged conduct of the Claimant which would have afforded him an opportunity for fair hearing. An act of gross misconduct has been defined as a conduct that is of grave and weighty character as to undermine the confidence which should exist between an employee and the employer. Working against the deep interest of the employer amounts to gross misconduct, which would entitle the employer to summarily dismiss the employee. Nwobosi v. ACB Limited (1995) 7 SCNJ 92. See also Ahmed v. Abu & Anor. (2016) LPELR (CA). It appears to me that the issue act of gross misconduct made by the Defendant against the Claimant was made in bad faith. I note that by Exh. C12 dated 26/5/14 in which the Defendant formally accepted the letter of resignation of the Claimant, the Defendant in the last paragraph of that exhibit had stated that ''While assuring you that your terminal benefits would be paid to you in due course, we advise that you hand over ALL above stated items to the undersigned before 30th May, 2014''. No issue of gross misconduct was raised in that exhibit. When then did the Defendant find the acts of the Claimant to be gross misconduct?. It is my finding and holding that the facts and evidence led even by the Defendant did not support the fact of the Claimant having committed acts amounting to gross misconduct. I further hold that there is no act of gross misconduct committed by the Claimant to warrant him forfeiting his terminal benefits. I note that the Claimant actually resigned his appointment with the Defendant giving a month notice from 22/2/14. By Exh. D5 the Defendant allegedly rejected the resignation pending the conclusion of certain matters. Master/Servant relationship is a voluntary one. Subject to complying with the applicable terms and conditions of engagement either party can elect to opt out of same. While the employer may terminate the relationship or out-rightly dismiss the employee, the employee also has the right to resign from the relationship. Just as with termination of employment, letter of resignation takes effect from the moment it is received when the length of notice will begin to count. Judicial authorities are clear and precise that a notice of resignation is effective, not from the date of the letter or from the date of the purported acceptance, but from the date the letter was received by the employer or his agent. See W.A.E.C. v. Oshionebo (2006) 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258. Put bluntly, resignation takes effect from the date notice is received by the employer or its agent. See Adefemi v. Abegunde (2004) 15 NWLR (pt. 895) 1 at p. 28. In Benson v. Onitiri (1960) SCNLR 177, (1960) FSC 69 the Court reiterated the fact that it is clear on the authority of Riodan v. The War Office (1959) 3 All E.R 522, 588 that resignation dates from the date notice was received. There is absolute power to resign and no discretion to refuse to accept notice. In the present case therefore the Claimant having resigned his from his employment by a letter dated 22/2/14, the Defendant had no option than to accept same. All that was left for the parties was any post employment matters between them such as calculation and payment of terminal benefits as may be due to the Claimant. From the moment the letter of resignation was received every form of employment relationship ceased and no obligation lies from one to the other safe post employment rights of an employee. The second issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. For the Claimant to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought, he must adduce sufficiently cogent and admissible evidence in support of same. The evidence required may be either oral or documentary or even both. This is in tandem with the trite principle of law that he who asserts must prove same. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. The basis for this relief is found in paragraph 63 of the statement of facts as well as paragraph 64 of the Claimant's witness deposition dated 20/3/15 and adopted as evidence in chief by the Claimant. I perused the 14 paragraph amended statement of defence filed on 10/6/16 together with the 17 paragraph statement on oath of Abimbola Alawode adopted as evidence in chief and noted that this important averment of the Claimant was not in any way or manner denied. Indeed, for reason best known to the Defendant it elected not to make any reference to the facts as contained in these processes. It is a known cardinal principle of pleadings that before an issue of fact can be said to have been joined by the parties in their pleadings, there must be proper and specific traverse of the fact/s contained in the pleadings. Where a positive and specific allegation or statement of facts was made by a party in his pleadings, there must be express and specific traverse of such allegation of statement of fact for an issue to be properly joined by the parties on such fact. Thus, if a Defendant wishes to join issues with a Plaintiff on any of the statements in the statement of facts, he must state specifically the facts of the denial in the statement of defence otherwise there would be no proper traverse which gives rise to an issue joined in the pleadings. See Ogu v. Manid Technology & Multipurpose Co-Operative Society Limited (2010)LPELR -4690(CA). The law is that a Plaintiff's averment of facts must be met by the Defendant frontally and categorically. See Lewis and Peat Ltd v. Akhimien (1976) 6 S.C. 159. Where a Defendant fails to file a defence, he is taken to have admitted the facts pleaded by the Plaintiff. See Okoebor v. Police Council (2003)12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444. In much the same vein, where a Defendant files a Statement of Defence and fails to traverse an issue which ought to be traversed, this amounts to an admission in which case the need for proof is dispensed with. See Atanda v. Iliasu (2013) 6 NWLR (Part 1351) 529 at 551; Jitte v. Okpulor (2016) 2 NWLR (Part 1497) 542 at 567 & Construction Road To House Limited & Anor. v. Unity Bank (2017) LPELR(CA). For, where facts are not challenged or controverted they amount to an admission of same and the Court is at liberty to act on it. There being no controversy respecting this relief therefore I hold that the Claimant is entitled to same. I thus declare that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. The second relief sought is for an order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of Two Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand and Four Hundred Naira (=N=2,678,400.00) to the Claimant as his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. The Claimant made explicit the basis for this claims in both his statement of facts as well as his testimony in chief. While the Defendant denied some paragraphs of the pleadings of the Claimants, Defendant failed and neglected to deny either in general or in specific terms paragraph 63 of the statement of facts. Secondly, the Defendant had the opportunity to challenge the testimony of the Claimant in chief during cross examination. That was not done. This second relief is both specific and fundamental. Failure of the Defendant to controvert same is fundamental to its case as it simply amounts to an admission of same. It was the submission of learned Counsel to the Defendant in his final written address that - ''... there is no condition of service guiding the working relationship of the parties before the Court and we urge your lordship not to be guided by a document not before the court in the interest of justice ...''. This line of argument is predicated on Exh. C16. That exhibit carries the name of Tyonex Nigeria Limited. It was tendered and admitted without objection. During cross examination, the Claimant had informed the Court that the Defendant is the manufacturing arm of Tyonex Nigeria Limited. That piece of evidence was not challenged through further cross examination by the Defendant. Indeed, I have reasons to believe that Exh. C16 is the document governing the relationship between the parties in this case. Section 1 dealing with Scope and Definition in paragraph 1.1.3 defines ''COMPANY'' to mean TYONEX NIGERIA LTD and any of its subsidiaries. Secondly, Exh. C5 & Exh. C7 were copies of internal memo written by the Claimant as Quality Assurance Manager. It carried the heading Tyonex Nigeria Limited. The matters raised in those exhibits related to Urgent Servicing of Air Conditioners &. Replacement of Worn-Out Chairs respectively. Thirdly and by no means of least importance and relevance to this case and the submission of learned Counsel to the Defendant is Exh. C17. It was written on the letter headed paper of Tyonex Nigeria Limited with the same address as the address of the Defendant. More instructive is the fact that that exhibit is a local purchase order for the purchase of Cecil Brand of High Pressure Liquid Chemotagraphy(sic) the same equipment which forms basis for the resignation of the Claimant. I find no merit in the submission of Counsel to the Defendant on the application of Exh. C16 to this case. I hold that it is the applicable document governing the terms and conditions of engagement between the parties. Cognizance of the earlier finding and holding of this Court in this case, I hold that the Claimant is entitled to this relief. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand and Four Hundred Naira (=N=2,678,400.00) to the Claimant as his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. The third relief is for an order directing the Defendant to pay Two Million Naira Only (=N=2,000,000.00) to the Claimant as compensatory and special damages for the direct and consequential losses suffered by the Claimant during the period he was not paid salary. By law relating to Compensatory damages, this hybrid of damages is said to be a sum of money awarded by a Court to indemnify a person for the particular loss, detriment or injury suffered as a result of the unlawful conduct of another; it provides a Plaintiff with the monetary amount necessary to replace what was lost, and nothing more. Compensatory damages are not the same as Punitive damages which punishes a Defendant for his or her conduct as a deterrent to the future commission of such acts. See Emirates Airline v. Ngonadi (2013) LPELR-22053 (CA). This head of claim of the Claimant is for a sum certain. It is in the nature of special damages. See Ngilari v. Mothercat Limited (1999) LPELR-1988. The law is trite that special damages must be specially claimed and strictly proved. See ISC Services Limited v. Genak Continental Limited & Anor. (2006) LPELR-7662 (CA). To be entitled to this relief, the Claimant must lead cogent evidence in support of same. He must prove his claim strictly. I have perused and evaluated all the exhibits tendered by the Claimant in support of his case. I find no proof of this head of claim in them. It is for the Claimant to inform the Court the loss or injury sustained by him as a result of the wrongful act(s) of the Defendant in the certain sum claimed. This was not done. I find the relief not proved. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. Claimant also sought payment of the sum of Two Million Naira to him by the Defendant as general damages for the pains, suffering and loss of amenity suffered by him. General damages is the kind of damages which the law presumes to be the consequence of the act complained of and unlike special damages a claimant for general damages does not need to specifically plead and specially prove it by evidence. It is sufficient if the facts thereof are generally averred. See Akeju JCA in EFCC v. Inuwa & Anor. (2014) LPELR-23597 (CA). During trial, the Claimant gave evidence to the effect that the refusal of the Defendant to pay him his salary, allowances and gratuity has put him under financial difficulties; that he suffered psychologically; that he was rendered useless as a father and husband and that his children could no longer attend schools and things were very difficult for him. In support of his case in general and this head of claim in particular, the Claimant tendered Exh. C16, Exh. C20 & Exh. C21. On evaluation of the exhibits tendered and admitted I find some wrong committed by the Defendant. I find on the facts averred that the Claimant suffered some damages for which the Court cannot but award general damages. In the circumstances of this case, I award the sum of One Million Naira as general damages in favor of the Claimant and payable by the Defendant. I award cost of this action in the sum of =N=200,000.00 in favor of 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 and, 1. I hold that there is no act of gross misconduct committed by the Claimant to warrant him forfeiting his terminal benefits. 2. I declare that the Claimant is entitled to the payment of his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. 3. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of Two Million, Six Hundred and Seventy Eight Thousand and Four Hundred Naira (=N=2,678,400.00) to the Claimant as his housing allowance, medical allowance, leave allowance, gratuity, leave days allowance and salary for the month of March 2014. 4. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of One Million Naira (=N=1, 000,000.00) to the Claimant being general damages for the pains, suffering and loss of amenity suffered by him 5. The Defendant is ordered to pay the sum of =N=200,000.00 to the Claimant as cost of this action. 6. All the terms of this Judgment are to be complied with within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge