Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant, by his General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts dated 11/5/16 approached this Court and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. An order to the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=4,925,744.27 (Four Million, Nine Hundred and twenty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Four Naira Twenty Seven Kobo) only being accumulated wages/salaries, allowances, leave grants and severance benefits from the 11th day of September, 2009 to the 29th day of September, 2015 being special damages. 2. Alternatively, the sum of =N=679,527.97 (Six Hundred and Seventy Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Twenty Seven Naira and Ninety Seven Kobo) only being the sum agreed by the Defendant to be due to the Claimant pursuant to the letter of cessation of contract of employment dated 29th day of September 2015 issued to the Claimant by the Defendant as special damages. 3. The sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being general damages for breach of contract of employment, detention of the sum as stated in relief 1 above and cost of this suit. The Claimant accompanied their Form 1 with all other requisite processes as mandated by the Rules of this Court. The Defendant was represented by a Counsel once in the course of proceeding. The Defendant did not file any defense process. The defendant was served all the originating processes as well as hearing notices for each of Court proceedings. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 25/01/17. The claimant testified as the lone witness for the Claimant. The witness adopted his witness disposition dated 11/5/16 as his witness-in-chief. Witness also tendered five (5) documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. OT1- Exh. OT5 respectively. The case of the claimant as revealed from his pleadings is that an offer of employment was made by the defendant on the 11th day of September, 2009 which the said offer was accepted by the claimant, the said employment was confirmed on the 15th day of November, 2010; that the defendant determined the employment of the claimant without following the terms of contract of employment; that the defendant vide a letter dated 1st June, 2013 renewed the employment of the claimant; that a new compensation package was stated therein; that upon the commencement of the new salary package, the claimant noticed some discrepancies which was brought to the notice of the defendant; that rather than address the discrepancies, the defendant issued the claimant with a letter titled “RE CESSATION OF CONTRACT” dated 29th day of September 2015; that since the termination of the claimant’s employment, the defendant has refused to credit the claimant’s salary bank account; that the claimant is entitled to accumulated wages/ salaries, allowances, leave grants and severance benefits. At the conclusion of evidence-in-chief, the matter was adjourned for cross-examination by the defendant. The defendant and his counsel were absent on trial days despite several hearing notices issued to them. 3. Submissions of Counsel Pursuant to the direction of the court at the close of trial, learned Counsel to the Claimant filed an 11-page final written address. In it, learned counsel set down a sole issue for the just determination of this case as follows:- Whether on a balance of probability, the claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs claimed. In arguing the sole issue, learned counsel submitted that it would be seen that the claimant has through the exhibits before the court, the statement of claim and oral evidence, proved existence of an enforceable contract of employment with the defendant and the breach of the written terms of the said contract of employment. Counsel submitted that the Claimant is entitled to the accumulated wages, salaries, allowances, leave grants and severance benefits. In conclusion, the learned counsel urged the court to grant the reliefs sought by the claimant. 4. Decision There is evidence to the effect that the defendant in this case was served all the processes filed in this suit. There is also proof of service of all hearing notices on the Defendant. Notwithstanding all this, the Defendant neither entered an appearance nor filed any defence process. Indeed, it was only on 3/4/17 that one R. I. Are of Counsel appeared for the Defendant. Counsel neither filed any defence process for the Defendant nor appeared subsequently to represent his client. No reason was given for this show of discourtesy to the Court. I read all the processes filed by the Claimant in this case. I heard the evidence in chief of the Claimant at trial and watched his demeanour. I also evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done all this, I hold that a sole issue for the just determination of this case is whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient evidence in proof of his case to be entitled to any or all the reliefs sought. I have noted at the beginning of this Judgment that the no appearance was entered on behalf of the Defendant. I also indicated that no defence process was filed as well. It therefore meant for all intents and purposes that there is no defence to this case. See Popoola Elemo & Anor. v. Dawodu (2006) NCSC 50 The fact remains that a party cannot be compelled to defend a suit against it. See A. Ameh A. Akpa Diga v. Adam Tony (2013) LPELR-20768(CA). That singular fact, (absence of defence) however does not entitle the Claimant to an automatic judgment there being no defence. See Okafor & Ors. v. Ichgo III & Ors. (1984)15 NSCC 360. The nature of our system of adjudication is that whoever approaches the Court for judicial intervention has the burden of establishing his entitlement to the reliefs sought. This must be done by adducing credible, cogent and admissible evidence. The evidence may be either oral, documentary or even both. The only exception where the imperative of proof by evidence is dispensed with is where there is a clear and unambiguous admissions of facts. For facts admitted need no further proof. See NNPC v. Clifco (Nig.) Limited (2011)10 NWLR (Pt. 1255) 209. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are essentially 3 in number. The first is for an order to the Defendant to pay the Claimant the sum of =N=4,925,744.27 (Four Million, Nine Hundred and Twenty Five Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Four Naira Twenty Seven Kobo) only being accumulated wages/salaries, allowances, leave grants and severance benefits from the 11th day of September, 2009 to the 29th day of September, 2015 being special damages. This claim is one that is of special damages in nature. The law is trite that a claim in special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved. Special damages are also called compensatory damages . They are based on measurable Naira amounts of actual loss, and it is for this reason that they are expected to be specially pleaded and strictly proved. See Julius Berger Nigeria Plc & Anor. v. Ugo (2015) LPELR-24408(CA) per Oho, J.C.A. Thus, to be entitled to this relief, the Claimant is expected not only to plead the facts relating to this head of relief, he must also adduce evidence in support of same. In proof of his case, the Claimant tendered 9 exhibits. Exh. OT1 & Exh. OT2 are letters of offer of appointment. Exh. OT3 is a letter of confirmation of appointment while Exh. OT4 is a letter of Renewal of Employment. On the other hand Exh. OT5 is a letter of cessation of contract of employment. Exh. OT6 - Exh. OT9 were copies of letters written by the learned Counsel to the Claimant on behalf of the Claimant. None of these exhibits is a pointer to how the Claimant arrived at the figure claimed under this head of relief. The sum of =N=4,925,744.27 was said to be accumulated wages/salaries, allowances, leave grants and severance benefits from the 11/9/09 to 29/9/15. Yet no evidence is led to indicate how much of the sum was for accumulated wages, how much was for allowances, how much was for leave grants and finally how much was meant to be for severance pay. It is for the Claimant to break this figure down as indicated. It is certainly not for the Court to do so for the Claimant. I find no credible and cogent evidence in support of this relief. I refuse and dismiss same accordingly for lack of proof. The second relief sought is in alternative. It is for the sum of =N=679,527.97 (Six hundred and seventy nine thousand five hundred and twenty seven naira and ninety seven kobo) only being the sum agreed by the Defendant to be due to the Claimant pursuant to the letter of cessation of contract of employment dated 29th day of September 2015 issued to the Claimant by the Defendant as special damages. Apart from his evidence in chief, the Claimant tendered Exh. OT5 to support his entitlement to this relief. That exhibit was the letter titled Re: Cessation of Contract. It was dated 29/9/15 and signed by one Fred Udechukwu. In its second paragraph, the letter stated thus - ''Your total End of Contract Benefit, deductions and other entitlements amounting to =N=679,527.97 will be paid to you as soon as the company's outstanding contract fees are received''. That letter was as far as 2015. There is no evidence before me to the effect that the Defendant had paid the said sum of money to the Claimant. That letter is a clear admission of liability by the Defendant to the Claimant. It is a clear admission of facts. The need for further proof is dispensed with. See Umeh v. Ejike (2013) LPELR-23506 (CA).I order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=679,527.97 being the sum admitted by the Defendant as due to the Claimant as his end of contract benefit, deductions and other entitlements in Exh. OT5. Finally, the Claimant also sought payment to him of the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being general damages for breach of contract of employment, detention of the sum as stated in relief 1 above and cost of this suit. Claimant did not contend before me that the Defendant was in breach of the existing contract of employment between them. There is also no claim for a declaration of wrongful termination of employment by the Claimant. I therefore find no basis upon which damages could be awarded the Claimant for breach of contract of employment. Secondly, the Claimant also sought payment for damages for detention of the sum of money stated in relief 1. In resolving issues surrounding relief 1, this Court has found and held that the sum claimed under that relief being a special damages was not proved as required by law. Thus it was refused and dismissed. Having been refused and dismissed therefore, it cannot now be a basis for award of general damages or any form of damages at all in favour of the Claimant. Same is therefore refused and dismissed. As for claim for cost, it is trite that cost follows event. It is trite that the award of cost is at the discretion of the Court in favour of a successful litigant at the end of the case. A successful party is always entitled to cost of action unless the Court finds anything to the contrary. See Regd. Trustees of Deeper Christian Life Ministry v. Ehbodaghe (2016) LPELR (CA). This case was instituted in 2016. The Claimant was represented by a Legal Practitioner. Expenses were incurred in filing court processes. This is aside from sundry expenses incurred by the Claimant. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to cost of this action. I thus order and direct the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the cost of this action assessed at =N=100,000.00 only. 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. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=679,527.97 being the sum admitted by the Defendant as due to the Claimant as his end of contract benefit, deductions and other entitlements in Exh. OT5. This sum is payable with interest at the rate of 15% per annum from October 2015 until final liquidation. 2. The Defendant is ordered and directed to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=100,000.00 being the cost of this action. All the sums due under this Judgment are to be paid within 30 days from today. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge