Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims On 7/7/15, the Claimant approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint and statement of facts and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant- 1. A declaration that the purported termination of the claimant’s employment by the Defendant by the letter dated July 23rd 2013 is unlawful, wrongful, ineffective, null and void and of no effect. 2. A declaration that the Claimant is still in the employment of the Defendant Company. 3. A declaration that the Claimant is entitled to continue his employment in the Defendant’s service until he attains the retirement age. 4. An order directing the re-instatement of the claimant to the Defendant. 5. An order directing the defendant to fully pay the claimant all his cumulative entitlements, salaries and allowances since the date of the purported termination of his employment. 6. Alternatively an Order commuting the alleged termination of the claimant’s employment by the Defendant to compulsory retirement with all retirement benefits and pension for life and without any loss of terminal benefits. 7. An order directing the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of Ten Million Naira (=N=10,000,000.00) as Exemplary General damages and compensation for the wrongly termination of his employment and the inhuman, degrading treatment suffered by the Claimant as a direct consequences of the Defendants wrongly, malicious, unfair, unjustifiable and willful summary dismissal of the claimant from the Defendant company. 8. =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) general damages for the unwarranted harassment, molestation, deprivation, hardship, sufferings and the emotional and psychological trauma caused the claimant by the arrest and detention of the Claimant at the Maroko Police Station cell which detention was masterminded and caused by the needless act of the Defendant. 9. Cost of the Litigation of this suit at the sum of =N=500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira). 10. An order compelling the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=10,000,000.00 (Ten Million Naira) to the Claimant as aggravated damages for the psychological trauma, loss of earnings and hardship inflicted upon the claimant and his entire family occasioned by the needless and wrongful summary dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant. The Form 1 of the Claimant was accompanied by statement of facts, witness statement on oath, Verifying Affidavit, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. The Defendant reacted by filing a statement of defence on 11/9/15 along with witness statement on oath, list of witness and list and copy of document to be relied on during trial. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on24/2/16 and testified as CW1. Claimant adopted his statement on oath made on 7/7/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 5 documents as exhibits. One of the documents was rejected and marked as such. The remaining 4 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C4. The case of the Claimant in brief is that he was employed by the Defendant as an Office Assistant in 2006; that he was later promoted to a facility maintenance office and by a letter dated February 7, 2007 his employment was confirmed; that he worked for the Defendant for a period of seven years before he was unjustly and undeservedly dismissed from work on July 23, 2013; that the dismissal or termination of his employment was the consequence of underground scheming of the Defendant’s Administrative Managers – Nonso Okwuma who had severally vowed to dismiss or terminate his employment; that he was unjustly arrested by the Police at Maroko at the instance of the Defendant and was subjected to unwarranted harassment, molestation, deprivation, hardship, sufferings and emotional and physical stress and trauma and that his arrest and detention at Maroko Police Station which detention was masterminded and caused by the needless act of the Defendant. Under cross examination, CW1 stated that he attended Standard 6 in Atikpo at Akpoha Primary School; that he started work with Defendant February 2006 and was confirmed 7/7/07; that he was working with Director of Defendant before he was made a Company Staff due to his good work; that he was only given letter of confirmation not letter of appointment; that he was given instruction in writing to clear the premises of Defendant particularly on 12/12/13; that his name is not written on any of the letters; that Nonso Okwuma was his Superior to whom he was reporting at Defendant; that she was Administrative Manager; that he was Office Assistant and Facility Maintenance Officer; that he did not ask for money to carry out the assignment given to him; that his appointment was terminated in writing and that he presently works at Unity Bank as a Security Guard. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant elected not to call witness or lead evidence in this case. Its case in brief from the pleadings filed is that it is a private limited liability Company which placed the Claimant in its employment as an office assistant in the Company sometime in 2006; that the employment of the Claimant was confirmed by Exhibit C1; that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was subsequently terminated vide a letter dated the 23rd of July, 2013; that upon the termination of his employment in July 2013 the Claimant caused his lawyer to write a demand letter to the Defendant in which it was claimed that the termination was wrongful and that the Claimant then instituted this suit on the 7th of July 2015 to challenge his termination and also made the claims for damages as contained in the Statement of Claim. 4. Written Submissions At the conclusion of trial, learned Counsel on either filed their final written addresses. The Claimant's final written address of 8 pages was filed on 21/7/17. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether the dismissal or termination of the claimant from the service of the Defendant is wrongful and unlawful? If the answer to this question is in the positive, whether the claimant is entitled to his claim. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought before this Honourable Court based on his unchallenged evidence. On 15/9/17, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 24-page final written address in which she set down the following lone issue for determination- Whether or not the Claimant has made out a case against the Defendant before this Honourable Court as entitle him to a determination of this action by the Honourable Court or to Judgment as claimed. I read all the final written addresses with a clear understanding of all the issues and argument canvassed by both learned Counsel. I shall make reference to any of them as may be found necessary in the course of this Judgment. 5. Decision I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side of this case. I listened to the evidence in chief of the lone witness called by the Claimant, watched his demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to be as follows - 1. Whether the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated. 2. Whether the Clamant has proved his case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. The Defendant in this case elected not to call any witness or lead any evidence during trial. It thus rested its case on the evidence as led by the Claimant. It is indeed that a Defendant to a suit is at liberty not to enter an appearance in the first case in which case it will be deemed satisfied with whatever the outcome of the trial. Even when as in the instant case, a Defendant enters an appearance and filed defence processes it is not thereby precluded from taking the step it has taken in this case. However, the fact that a Defendant does not enter an appearance or does not call witness and/or lead evidence at trial does not confer on the Claimant as in this case automatic entitlement to Judgment. The law remains the same that he who asserts has the burden of proving the assertion. The first issue for determination is whether the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated. For the issue of termination of employment is at the core of the case of the Claimant. This fact is also reflected in the Claimant's first relief as sought. The determination of this issue therefore is a precursor to most if not all the reliefs sought. In paragraph 24 of his statement of facts, the Claimant had averred that - '' ... his dismissed(sic) or termination of his employment by the Defendant by the letter dated July 23rd 2013 without compensation is unconstitutional unlawful wrongful, null and void and of no effect''. The law is trite that in an action for wrongful termination of employment, an employee is obliged to place before the Court his contract of employment stating the terms and conditions of his engagement. The employee is thus further expected to prove to the Court who has the power to terminate his employment and under what circumstances that could be done. The rationale for this is because the said contract of employment is the bedrock and the foundation of the relationship between parties in employment relationship. See Adams v. LSDPC (2000)5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291. In the absence of the contract of employment or anything to prove the terms and conditions of employment the Court will be left with no option than to dismiss the case of the Claimant. In the instant case, the Claimant alleged wrongful termination of his employment. Claimant tendered 4 exhibits in proof of his case. None of the exhibits is contract of employment. There is also no letter of employment tendered. Indeed, the only exhibit pointing to employment relationship between the parties is Exh. C1 - a letter confirming the employment of the Claimant. The terms and conditions of the employment are not before the Court to enable the Court determine whether or not the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant was wrongful. Even though the Claimant referred to a letter of termination of his employment allegedly dated 23/7/13 same was neither frontloaded nor tendered as exhibit in this Court. In the absence of evidence by the Claimant to prove the wrongfulness of the termination of his employment, I hold that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant was not wrongful. The second issue for determination is whether the Clamant has proved his case to be entitled to all or some of the reliefs sought. By the nature of our adjudicatory system of dispensation of justice, the burden of proof is always on he who asserts to discharge. See Section 131 (1) & (2), Evidence Act, 2011. An exception to this rule being where there is admission of some material facts in which case facts admitted need no further proof. This Court has found and held that the Claimant failed to prove that the termination of his employment was wrongful. Thus a declaration sought to that effect is refused. Secondly, not having proved that the termination of his employment is wrongful, there is no basis for the Court to declare that he is still in the employment of the Defendant. The Claimant has also sought a declaration that he is entitled to continue his employment in the Defendant’s service until he attains the retirement age. The fact is that an employment relationship is a voluntary one. Either party has the right to enter and to exit subject to complying with requisite notices or payment of salary in lieu of notice. Once a party in an employment relationship exercises its right to exit, the Court will not make a contrary order especially where the employment is not one with statutory flavor. For, to do so will amount to foisting a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See ACB Limited v. Ufondu (1997)10 NWLR (Pt. 523) 169. No Court will take such a decision. This Court will also not for the same reason make an order for reinstatement of the Claimant to his former employment. In any event respecting issue of retirement age, there is nothing placed before the Court that indicates that the Claimant would continue to work with the Defendant until retirement. From the foregoing, I refuse and dismiss this head of claim for lack of proof as required. The Claimant sought also an order directing the Defendant to fully pay the Claimant all his cumulative entitlements, salaries and allowances since the date of the purported termination of his employment. In an action for arrears of salaries and allowances, it is imperative for the Claimant to plead and lead evidence in proof of his monthly salary, his monthly allowances, the months for which salaries and allowances were outstanding and evidence to show that indeed the stated sums are yet to be paid. A claim for arrears of salary and allowances is a claim which is akin to special damages. The law requires that such be specially pleaded and strictly proved. See Kosile v. Folarin (1989) 3 NWLR (Pt.107) 1 at 13. Again, in this respect, the 4 exhibits tendered by the Claimant have no bearing to proof of this head of claim. It is not for the Court to make a case for a party no matter what might be the circumstances of the particular litigant and neither is the Court permitted to be sentimental in the discharge of its adjudicatory responsibilities. There is no evidence in proof of this head of relief. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. The Claimant sought in alternative an order commuting the alleged termination of his employment by the Defendant to compulsory retirement with all retirement benefits and pension for life and without any loss of terminal benefits. The power to terminate employment of the Claimant as exercised by the Defendant is inherent in the Defendant as an employer. Indeed, the Claimant has equal power and right which is exercisable by resigning from the employment of the Defendant. There is no evidence placed before me to inhibit the power of the Defendant to terminate the employment of the Claimant. I also find no convincing evidence to compel the Defendant to commute the letter of termination of employment to one of compulsory retirement. I have no hesitation in refusing and dismissing this relief and I so do. The Claimant has sought award of damages under different heads. These include exemplary damages (=N=10,000,000.00) for wrongful termination of his employment and the inhuman, degrading treatment suffered by the Claimant as a direct consequences of the Defendants wrongly, malicious, unfair, unjustifiable and willful summary dismissal of the claimant from the Defendant company. I have found and held that the termination of the Claimant's employment was not wrongful. That being the case there is no basis to award any damages as sought under this head. I thus refuse and dismiss same. Claimant also sought =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) general damages for the unwarranted harassment, molestation, deprivation, hardship, sufferings and the emotional and psychological trauma caused by his arrest and detention at the Maroko Police Station cell which detention was masterminded and caused by the needless act of the Defendant. I find no evidence of this claim for damages. Unfortunately, Claimant alleged he was arrested and detained by the Police. Yet the Nigeria Police Force was not made a party to this suit. Thus leaving the Court with no choice than to dismiss this claim for damages also. In much the same vein the claim for =N=10,000,000.00 as ''aggravated damages for the psychological trauma, loss of earnings and hardship inflicted upon the claimant and his entire family occasioned by the needless and wrongful summary dismissal of the claimant by the Defendant'' is refused and dismissed for lack of proof. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, the case of the Claimant is dismissed in its entirety. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge