JUDGMENT: The claimant in this case by a general form of complaint filed on 21st day of March 2014 approached the court and sought for following reliefs: 1. A declaration that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant is unwarranted. Malicious, illegal and unlawful. 2. A declaration that the refusal by the defendant to pay the claimant his entitlements is illegal and unlawful. 3. An order of this honourable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N223,400.00 being the claimant’s entitlements when his employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant. 4. An order of this honourable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N10,000,000.00 being general and punitive damages for unlawful termination of the claimant’s employment 5. An order of this honourable court directing the defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of N2,000,000.00 being the cost of this action. Accompanying the complaint were the following documents; statement of facts, claimant’s witness statement on oath, list of witness and photocopies of document to be relied on at the trial. The case of the Claimant. The Claimant testified on 12/7/18, as CW1, wherein he stated that he was vide exhibit CW1B appointed as a Technical staff with effect from March 2004, on a monthly salary of N14,140.00 (Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Naira). Upon appraisal vide exhibit CW1C. The salary of the claimant was reviewed in April 2007, to N21,180.00 (Twenty One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Naira). It was stated that sometime in 2010 the defendant got contract from the Central Bank of Nigeria at Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State. It was stated that the claimant was paid the sum of N5,000.00 (Five Thousand Naira) for transportation and directed to travel to Uyo for the execution of the contract. That while at Uyo the claimant incurred expenses in the course of the execution of the contract which was to be refunded to him by the defendant. At the completion of the execution of the contract, the claimant returned back to his duty post in Abuja without being given transportation allowance. That after returning to Abuja from Uyo, the claimant was directed to take the instrument/tools used to execute the contract at Uyo to Lagos without being given transportation allowances. The way bill was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit CW1D. It is the evidence of the claimant that at Lagos, he presented an oral report on the execution of contract at Uyo to the Managing Director. Thereafter, the claimant requested for the refund of the expenses incurred during the execution of the contract at Uyo, his transportation allowance. It was stated that the Managing Director got annoyed with the claimant request and told the claimant that he was dismissed and should not go to work again. The security men working for the defendant were asked by the managing director not to allow the claimant entrance into the defendant’s premises any longer. It was stated that the defendant did not pay the claimant salary for the month of September 2010, nor paid the claimant allowances in lieu of annual leave from 2005 to 2010. The claimant stated that he was dismissed because he demanded for his entitlements. That after he was dismissed, the claimant engaged service of U. S. Audu & Co; vide exhibit CW1E 1-2, his counsel demanded for payment of his entitlement, but the defendant failed and neglected to respond to the request. That the claimant vide exhibit CW1F 1-2, wrote petition to independent Corrupt Practices And Other Related Offences Commission, (ICPC), for help to recover his benefits and entitlement. The said request was forwarded to National Human Rights Commission for necessary action. The Human Rights Commission investigated and wrote to the defendant, but the defendant refused to pay him. The claimant prays this court to grant all his reliefs. Under-cross examination, CW1, testified that there is no other condition of service apart from exhibit CW1B. CW1 stated that he is entitled to be given notice. But exhibit CW1B did not make provision for notice. That while in Uyo, Akwa-Ibom State he was in touch with the defendant. That on his return he did not submit report to the defendant. That he was technically alone but got an assistant at Uyo which the company allowed him to get. He was not aware of any report by CBN. That his primary place of assignment is Abuja. when the Managing Director worked him out of Lagos he did not report back to Abuja.. At close of the claimant’s case, the counsel for the defendant informed the court that the defendant did not file statement of defence and is not calling evidence. Consequently, parties were directed to file final written address beginning with the claimant since the defendant did not file any defence nor call any witness to testify. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT. The claimant submitted two issues for determination, as follows:- 1. Whether the claimant has proved his case before the honourable court against the defendant considering the fact and circumstances of this case’’. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the reliefs being sought by him in this case’’. In arguing issue counsel submitted that the claimant has proved his case before this honourable court against the defendant considering the fact and circumstances of this case, counsel contended that vide exhibit CW1B the claimant was employed by the defendant in march, 2004, on monthly salary of N14,100.00 and vide exhibit CW1C his salary was reviewed to N21,280.00 in 2007. Counsel contended with these unchallenged evidence claimant has proved that he is employee of the defendant. Counsel contended the question to be answered is whether the claimant was lawfully dismissed from the employment of the defendant. It is the submission of counsel that vide paragraph 3 of exhibit CW1B, the conditions upon which the claimant may be dismissed from the defendant’s employment, specially paragraph 3, i.e any parallel operations with the company shall be treated with serious punishment while absence from work without permission shall not be tolerated. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant was not dismissed from the defendant’s employment because he breached any of the conditions stated in exhibit CW1B. The dismissal of claimant because he demanded for his duly, justly and fundamentally entitled to. It is the submission of counsel he who has the right to hire has the right to fire. But the firer must comply with the terms of the contract. On this submission counsel placed reliance on these cases; WAEC V OSHIONEBO (2006) 16 NWLR (PT.1994) 258, UMTHMB V DAWA (2001) 16 NWLR (PT.739) 424, LONGE V F, B. N. PLC (2010) 6 NWLR (PT.1189) 1. Counsel submitted that the defendant did not comply with its contract in dismissing the claimant. In otherwords the claimant did nothing to warrant being dismissed, therefore the dismissal was unlawful. It is the argument of counsel that the claimant was not given notice before his dismissal. An employee cannot dismiss without giving notice, save for acts of misconduct or breach of the terms of the contract. Hence claimant was entitled to notice before his employment could be properly terminated. Counsel contended in the absence of length of notice in exhibit CW1B, the claimant is entitled to reasonable notice of termination of his employment. On this contention counsel relied on AKUMECHIEL V B. C. C. LTD (1997) 1 NWLR (PT.484) 695, S.S.C.O. LTD V AFROPAK NIG. LTD (2008) 18 NWLR (PT.1118) 77. Counsel submitted the complaint and its accompanying processes were served on the defendant and the defendant in turn filed memorandum of appearance but neither file any process nor called any witness to defend this case. The implication of this is in law is very simple. It only means defendant has admitted and accepted as truth, the case presented by the claimant before this court. Counsel urged the court to hold that the claimant has proved his case as facts admitted needs no proof. On this contention counsel relied on section 123 of the Evidence Act 2011. On issue two counsel argued that the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought by him before this court since the claimant has proved his claim without challenge from the defendant. Since claimant has proved wrongful termination is entitled to the claim of N223,400.00. Likewise claim for cost and damages, has been proved since there is no denial from the defendant. It is contended a successful party is entitled to cost in the absence of a special circumstances including the conduct of the parties, which might command a contrary order. On this counsel cited the case of OYEBAMIJI V FABIYI (2003) 12 NWLR (PT.834) 271. Counsel argued that the claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal and the measure of damages is the ordinarily what the party would have earned if the contract of service had continued. On this reliance was placed on EMOKPAE V UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (2002) 17 NWLR (PT.795) 139, BEREDUGO V COLLEGE OF SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.187) 651, KABELMETAL NIG. LTD V ATIVIE (2002) 10 NWLR (PT.775) 250. It is also argued that the claimant is entitled to award of punitive damages based on the terrible and wicked attitude of the defendant in this case. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to hold that claimant has proved his case and entitled to reliefs claimed. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT. The defendant formulated two issues for determination, thus: 1. Whether the claimant has successfully proved his claim against the defendant which will entitle the claimant the reliefs sought’’. 2. The effect of a party who fails to adduce reliable and credible evidence to prove his case in court’’. Counsel submitted that the claimant alleged that he was dismissed from service by the defendant. However, under cross-examination he admitted that his place of primary assignment was Abuja and that after he was asked to leave the defendant’s Lagos business premises by the Managing Director of the defendant, the claimant failed to resume at his place of primary assignment at Abuja but walked away without any formal communication from the defendant. It is the submission of counsel that a look at exhibit CW1B, will show that claimant was employed by the defendant and not the managing director of the defendant. There is no document before this court reflecting that the defendant terminated the appointment of the claimant. There was also no evidence showing that claimant was prevented from resuming at his duty post at Abuja being his place of primary assignment. The claimant instead of resuming at his job, rather engaged several agencies with letters. It is the submission of counsel that exhibits before the court are at variance with the oral testimony before the court. There is no evidence showing defendant terminated claimant’s appointment. It is contended where there is oral and documentary evidence, the documentary evidence should be used as hanger on which to access oral testimony. On this counsel relied on INTERCONTINENTAL BANK FOR WEST AGRICA LTD V JOHNSON ELUE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD & 1 OR. (2004) 7 NWLR (PT.873) 601. It is argued the relationship between the claimant and defendant was commenced by exhibit CW1B, and there is no evidence before this honourable court that the defendant terminated the appointment of the claimant. The claimant has failed or refused to prove how defendant dismissed him from its employment. The claimant has also not establish how and when the defendant’s action has caused the claimant hardship having not clearly proved by credible evidence that the defendant by words or action participated or dismissed the claimant from its employment. There was no evidence to show claimant was denied access to his place of primary assignment in Abuja. It is further argued that there is no contract of employment between the managing Director of the defendant and the claimant as there is no evidence of agency before this court by the claimant to show that the Managing Director acted based on the instruction of the defendant. It is also argued that there is nothing before the court on record to suggest that the Managing Director was authorised by the defendant to send the claimant out of its Lagos office. The claimant failed to join the Managing Director as a party to this suit. The claimant failed to establish by credible evidence that the Managing Director acted within his responsibilities from the defendant. Counsel argued that the law is firmly established beyond peradventure that based on the doctrine of privity of contract, a contract affect only the parties to it and cannot be enforced by or against a person who is not a party even if the contract is made for his benefit. On this submission counsel relied on A-G FEDERATION V A. I. C. LTD (r2001) 4 WRN 96, MALWE V NWUKOR (2001) 32 WRN 1, CRSWB V NVE LTD (2007) 18 WRN 132. Since a contract affect only parties to it, the legal position remains that the actions of the Managing Director outside the place of primary assignment of the claimant cannot be enforced against the defendant without credible evidence. Counsel also argued that in a claim for wrongful termination of employment, the onus is on the claimant to put forward his letter of employment containing terms and conditions of the contractual arrangement. On the other hand the claimant may put forward his contract of service which must also contain the contractual terms and conditions agreed to by the employer and the employee. It is incumbent upon the claimant to prove to the court the terms and conditions of his employment; the manner of how his employment may be terminated and how the employer has failed to comply with the manner of termination as contained in either the letter of employment or the contract of service. It is submitted that what determines termination of an appointment depends upon what the terms of the contract between the parties provide. On this submission counsel placed reliance on WAEC V OBISESSAN (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.484) 1620. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant failed to adduce evidence before the court on his contract of employment. It is well settled that parole evidence cannot be used to alter the terms of a written agreement. It is also well settled that parties cannot read into a document what is not there or read out of it and what is not there. U. B. N. LTD V SAX NIG. LTD & ORS (1994) 8 NWLR (PT.361) 150. It was argued by counsel that the claimant failed to adduce evidence before his court explaining his whereabouts from the Month of October, 2010 to February, whether or not he is still under the services of the defendant within the above period and carrying out its instructions. Rather under cross-examination, he admitted not returning to his duty post in Abuja, having been instructed to leave the defendant’s office in Lagos, although this instruction was not given by the defendant. Counsel argues facts admitted need no further proof. UAC NIG. PLC V EUNICE AKINYELE (2012) 15 NWLR (pt.1322) 7. On the claim of N223,400.00 (two Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand Four Hundred Naira), being claim for wrongful termination, the Supreme Court has cautioned that a claim for salary, allowances and the like without any particularisation as to show how the sum was earned and arrived at makes such a claim vague, as was held in UNIVERSITY OF JOS V DR. M. C. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478. In OGIAMIEN V GULF MANNING SERVICES NIG. LTD (supra), the court further stated that it is mandatory for the claimant to prove his entitlement to the amount claimed. It is not sufficient to merely claim by averments, credible, cogent and admissible evidence must be led in proof of same. It is argued that the failure of claimant to particularised his claim to show sum was earned and arrived at in the claimant evidence before the court is fatal to his case. The head of claim should be refused.it was also argued that the claimant failed to establish by evidence before this court the date and year the alleged dismissal took place by the Managing Director. It is the submission of counsel that in this case the claimant has not defendant’s wrongful act to warrant grant of damages. It is also argued that general damages are loses which flows from the defendant and its quantum need to be pleaded or proved as it is generally presumed by law. They are presumed to flow from the negligence complained of as stated in UNITED BANK FOR AFRICA PLC V BTL INDUSTRIES LTD (2004) 18 NWLR (Pt.904) 180. General damages are always by law presumed by law on no account be awarded on speculative claims and scanty evidence. SMITHCLIME BEACHAM PLC V FARMEX LTD (2009) ALL FWLR (PT.477) 568. It is also submitted for damages to be awarded, it does not include or take account of speculative or sentimental value nor does it include compensation for injured feelings or trauma. SHENA SECURITY COMPANY LTD V AFROPAK NIG. LTD (2008) 4-5 SC (Pt.2) 117 or (2008) LPELR 1. It is submitted that there is nowhere both in the documentary as well as in the oral evidence where the claimant has proved that the defendant’s action contributed to his alleged dismissal to warrant claims for general and punitive damages. The claimant under cross examination admitted that after his interaction with the defendant’s Managing Director in Lagos, the claimant went home and failed to report at his place of primary assignment in Abuja. It is also submitted that it is an implicit consideration for the award of damages, that damages must be claimed or awarded by a court must be reasonable in particular circumstances of each case. It is argued a party who claims damages for the commission of a tort or breach of contract must take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss, which he has sustained consequent upon the defendant’s wrong and if he fails to do so he cannot claim damages for any such loss, which he ought reasonably to have avoided. IN KENNOLDS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD V ROCKNOH PROPERTIES COMPANY LTD (2005) 10 NWLR (PT.934) 615, it was held a court would refuse to grant unreasonable, aggravated, oppressive claim for damages. It is the submission of counsel that the totality of the evidence before the court there is exaggeration, unreasonableness, oppressive, unconscionable in his demand for damages. Based on exhibit CW1B, the claimant was expected to exhibit high level of honesty, transparency and discipline. Counsel argued that one test of reasonableness is whether a prudent person could have acted in the same way if the alleged wrongful act had arisen through his own default. Under cross examination the claimant admitted that his place of work was Abuja and not Lagos and after being instructed out of Lagos office failed to resume at his duty post in Abuja without any letter of termination from the defendant. The claimant under cross examination admitted that the only correspondence ever issued to him by the defendant was exhibit CW1B. Counsel argued that having failed to resume at his duty post at Abuja, the claimant’s claim No. 2, is not sustainable because the claimant failed to be available to earn his entitlement from the defendant. It is submitted that the claimant never suffered any damage in law which this court could award damages. The claimant is only suffering from his own ignorance and therefore cannot be deemed to have suffered any damages in law worthy of any consideration. On this submission reliance was placed on KEEN V DANNY (1894) 3 CH 169. It is also argued that party who adduced unreliable and incredible evidence is bound to fail in civil case before the court. PADA CHABASAYA V JOE ABWASI (2010) 10 NWLR (Pt.13201) 163. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one in the negative and dismiss the claimant’s claim. In arguing issue two counsel contended that the claimant having failed to adduce evidence of termination by the defendant, cannot claim that his appointment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant. It is submitted that a party who desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of fact, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act, 2011. It is the contention of counsel that the claimant has failed, neglected and refused to prove those facts which he depend on. It was also argued that the claimant failed to specifically prove his entitlement by particularizing them and proving same. This is because a claim that is vague and lack certainty is no claim at all. On this submission counsel relied on UNIJOS V DR. M. C. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478. NZERIBE V ANYIM (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.488) 1. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue two in favour of the defendant. REPLY TO THE CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS Declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course but on credible evidence led. IBEKWE V IMO STATE EDUCATION MGT BOARD (2009) ALL FWLR (Pt.488) 299. Counsel submitted no evidence before the court showing defendant dismissed claimant from service. Counsel contended issue of become relevant if by credible evidence the claimant is able to establish that the alleged actions of the Managing Director was authorized by the defendant. On issue of cost, no payment receipt has been tendered in establishing professional fees. INTEL (NIG.) LTD V BASSEY (2013) ALL FWLR (Pt.675) 378. Counsel submitted cost of legal fees cannot be passed on or transferred to the adversary as such is contrary to public policy. Counsel submitted that final address is not substitute for evidence. The address of counsel no matter how brilliant cannot constitute evidence. Counsel urged the court to strike out paragraph 5.06 of the claimant’s final written address. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s action due to lack of proof. COURT’S DECISION: I have carefully considered the originating processes commencing this suit, as well as the final written addresses of counsel for both parties. It is pertinent at this juncture to point out here that the defendant despite entry of appearance failed and neglected to file defence to the claimant’s pleading. Rather counsel choose to cross-examine the witness of the claimant and filed final written address. The natural consequence of failure or neglect to file statement of defence in answer to the claimant’s pleadings is that issues have not been joined and by the ordinary rules of pleading, the allegations are taken as admitted and stand unchallenged so long as they disclose cause of action. Generally, failure by a defendant to file statement of defence in answer to the pleading of the claimant is deemed to have admitted the claims or reliefs in the statement of facts. The action of the defendant in refusing to file defence may warrant entry of judgment on the strength of the claim of the claimant. But, it is not in all cases where the defendant failed to file defence that the claimant will be entitled to judgment against the defendant. The peculiar facts of the case are the determining factor to be taken into consideration by the court. A court should not enter judgment in default of defence where there is claim for damages as in this case. Albeit, it is the rule of pleading that which is not denied is deemed to have been admitted. This means where a claimant filed statement of facts and the defendant did not file statement of defence in answer thereto, he clearly, will be deemed to have admitted the statement of claim, leaving the trial court with the authority to peremptorily enter judgment for the plaintiff without hearing evidence. The exception to this rule is where claim for damages is in issue or where the claimant is seeking for declaratory reliefs. By law, a claimant seeking for declaratory reliefs must prove his case on the strength of his evidence, not on the weakness of the defence of the defendant. See Okereke v. Umahi & ors  LPELR-40035(SC) and Nyesom v. Peterside & ors  LPELR-40036(SC); and a declaratory relief is never granted on the basis of admission or default of pleading. See Bulet International Nig Ltd v. Dr Omonike Olaniyi & anor  Vol 6 - 12 MJSC (Pt. III) 6. It is also trite law that for award of damages the onus is on the claimant to prove his entitlement to such damages by adducing cogent and credible evidence in support of such a claim. See IMANA V ROBINSON (1979) 3-4 SC 1, UMANA V OKWURAIWE (1978) 6-7 SC 1, OLUROTIMI V FELICIA IGE (1993) 8 NWLR (PT.311) 257, ENGR. FEMI SONUGA & ANOR. V THE MINISTRY OF FED. CAPITAL TERRITORY ABUJA (2010) LPELR-19789 CA, BERNARD OKOEBOR V POLICE COUNCIL & ORS. (2003) 13 NWLR (PT.834) 444, 2003 5 SC 11. Another issue that need resolution before considering the substantive suit is the oral objection of the counsel for the claimant to the final written address of the defendant, which was filed on 30th October 2018, out of time without leave of court first sought and obtained. Counsel insisted that the final written address filed by the defendant is incompetent as it was filed outside the 21 days allowed by the rules of this court. The counsel for the defendant did not care to respond to the objection of the counsel for the claimant on the incompetency of the final written address rather counsel went ahead and adopted the said final written address. The provisions of order 45 of the rules of this court are very clear and unambiguous on the time limit within which to file final written address. The counsel for the defendant on 4/10/18, when this matter first came up for adoption of final written addresses informed the court he was served with the claimant’s final written address on that day and he need time react to it. Consequently, the matter was then adjourned to 18/11/18 for adoption of final addresses. The defendant’s final written address was filed on 30th day of October 2018. This clearly shows that it was filed out of time and there was no application filed for extension of time to file same out of time. In the circumstance, I uphold the objection of the counsel for the claimant. The defendant’s final written address filed on 30th October 2018, was filed outside the period of time permitted by the rules of this court. Therefore, the said final written address of the defendant is incompetent and same is hereby discountenanced. From the evidence before the court the question to be resolved is ‘whether the claimant has proved his case to entitled him to the reliefs being claimed’ The claimant in his evidence has stated that he was employed by the defendant as Technical staff vide exhibit CW1B with effect from March, 2004, on a Monthly salary of N14,140.00 (Fourteen Thousand One Hundred and Forty Naira). Upon appraisal vide exhibit CW1C. The salary of the claimant was reviewed in April 2007, to N21,280.00 (Twenty One Thousand One Hundred and Eighty Naira). Sometime in 2010, the claimant was posted to Uyo Akwa-Ibom State for the execution of contract which the defendant got from the Central Bank of Nigeria Uyo. The claimant while at Uyo, in course of execution of the job incurred expenses which was to be refunded to him by the defendant. At the completion of the execution of the contract, the claimant returned back to his duty post in Abuja without being given transportation allowance. Upon returning to Abuja from Uyo, the claimant was directed to take the instrument/tools used to execute the contract at Uyo to Lagos without being given transportation allowances. It is the claimant’s evidence that at Lagos, he presented an oral report on the execution of contract at Uyo to the Managing Director. Thereafter, the claimant requested for the refund of the expenses incurred during the execution of the contract at Uyo and his transportation allowance. It was stated that the Managing Director of the defendant got annoyed with the claimant’s request and told the claimant that he was dismissed and should not go to work again. The security men working for the defendant were asked by the managing director not to allow the claimant entrance into the defendant’s premises any longer. It was stated that the defendant did not pay the claimant salary for the month of September 2010, nor paid the claimant allowances in lieu of annual leave from 2005 to 2010. The claimant stated that he was dismissed because he demanded for his entitlements. Based on the evidence adduced by the claimant he is seeking for a declaration that his dismissal is unwarranted. Malicious, illegal, unlawful and the refusal to pay his entitlements is illegal and unlawful. Payment of the sum of N223,400.00 being entitlements for wrongfully termination, payment of the sum of N10,000,000.00 being general and punitive damages for unlawful termination of the claimant’s employment and payment of the sum of N2,000,000.00 being the cost of this action. The claimant counsel in his final written address insisted that the claimant has proved his case before the court and is entitled to the reliefs being sought, as there was no challenge to the case put forward by the claimant. It is the argument of counsel that the claimant was not given notice before his dismissal. An employee cannot dismiss without giving notice, save for acts of misconduct or breach of the terms of the contract. Counsel argued that the claimant is entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal and the measure of damages is the ordinarily what the party would have earned if the contract of service had continued. From the claims and the evidence adduced before the court the claimant is contesting the validity of his oral dismissal from the service of the defendant by the Managing Director of the defendant. He is therefore, seeking reliefs for wrongful dismissal. However, before determining the claims of the claimant, I would like to deal with a very narrow, thin but important crucial issue i.e the claimant’s assertion that he was orally dismissed from the service of the defendant by the Managing Director of the defendant. The position of the Managing Director is the overall chief administrator of the defendant in charge of the day to day running of the defendant. He is an agent of the defendant in acts carried out on behalf of the defendant. It is in evidence that the claimant after returning from assignment he executed in Uyo, he returned to his duty post in Abuja. He was then directed to take all the tools used in the execution of the job at Uyo to the head office of the defendant in Lagos, which he complied. On getting to the Head office of the defendant in Lagos, the claimant orally reported to the Managing Director how the Uyo assignment was executed. Thereafter the claimant requested for the refund of the money expended in Uyo in carrying out the assignment given to him and his transportation allowance. However, instead of responding to the request for refund, the Managing Director becomes angry and informed the claimant that he has been dismiss from service and should not go back to office. The security personnel of the defendant were also directed by the Managing Director not allowed the claimant entry into the office again. It is clear as the day light that the Managing Director is the overall chief executive officer of the defendant who has a great say in the affairs and decisions of the defendant. All what transpired between the claimant and the Managing Director took place at the head office of the defendant. And all what transpired was in the course of performance of official duties as agents of the defendant. In law acts of an agent are attributable to the principal unless there is evidence to prove the contrary. The defendant having not file any defence to counter the averment of the claimant cannot be heard to deny the evidence given by the defendant. In the circumstance I have no choice than to accept the story told by the claimant of what transpired between him and the managing director of the defendant. It is in evidence which has not been disproved that the claimant was vide exhibit CW1B, employed by the defendant in March 2004, as a Technical Staff and vide CW1C after an appraisal of performance his salary was doubled. These exhibit clearly established contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant. Also under cross examination the claimant testified that there was no any other condition of service apart from exhibit CW1B. This clearly established that exhibit CW1B is the contract agreement governing the claimant employment with the defendant. It is to be noted that in contract of employment the relationship between a master and his servant or an employer and his employee is a contractual one and is governed by the terms and conditions of the contract between them. This means, an employee is only entitled to make claims from his employer based on stipulations contained in the terms and conditions of the contract. See NWAUBANI V GOLDEN GUNEA BREWERIES PLC (1995) 6 NWLR (Pt.400) 184. However, it must not be forgotten that a contract of service, is a relationship entered into between two or more persons employer and employee (master and servant) where by the employee or servant agree to serve the employer or master and to be subject to the control of the master either for a fixed term or a term of indefinite duration in return for a benefit i.e payment of salary or wages. In the case of NIGERIA AIRWAYS V GBAJUMO (1992) 5 NWLR (Pt.244) 735, the Court of Appeal held that the relationship of master and servant is characterized by: a. A contract of service made under seal, oral or inferred from the conduct of the parties. b. Payment of wages and salaries. The court went further to say that where one party employs another, appoints him to various positions in its establishment, pays his salary and allowances, these acts constitute sufficient fact from which a contract of employment can be inferred. The claimant in this suit who was employed by the defendant vide exhibit CW1B, as a Technician Staff falls within the definition of ‘worker’ as provided under section 91 of the Labour Act. It is apt at this juncture to refer to the provision of section 91 of the Labour Act, the section read: ‘‘worker’’ means any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer, whether the contract is for manual labour or clerical work or is expressed or implied or oral or written, and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour, ……’’. By the above quoted section it is plain that a contract of employment means any agreement, whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker. The evidence before the court clearly shows the existence of contract of service between the claimant and the defendants, what remain to be shown is whether the claimant has established the condition of service and how the contract was breached by the defendants. As pointed out earlier exhibit CW1B is the letter of appointment and contained the conditions for the relationship. The exhibit is however silent on how the contract can be determined. In the circumstances resort would be had to the common law which is that an employer can dismiss his servant or employee from his employment for good or for bad reasons or for no reason at all. This means the law will not impose an employee on employer and vice versa. Hence, an order for specific performance of contract of employment is an aberration which is rarely made. The common law principle on termination or dismissal of an employee of a contract of service even if unlawful has the effect of bringing to an end the relationship of master and servant, employer and employee. See CHUKWUMAH V SHELL PETROLEUM DEV. CO. NIG. LTD 1993 4 NWLR PT.89 512. Applying the above principles of law I hold that the oral dismissal of the claimant by the defendant perfected by the managing director is wrongful in law, but it has effectively ended the relationship of master and servant between the parties. The reason being that the claimant was not given fair hearing before the contract was determined by the defendant. He was also not given notice of determination as required by law. See section 11 of Labour Act. In cases of wrongful dismissal/termination the damages payable is what the claimant is entitled to for the period of notice in addition to any other entitlement. In this case going by the provisions of section 11 of the Labour Act and the number of years of service the claimant is entitled to payment of one Month salary in lieu of notice. I so hold. On the claim for an order of this honourable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N223,400.00 being the claimant’s entitlements when his employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant. The claim for an order of this honourable court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N10,000,000.00 being general and punitive damages for unlawful termination of the claimant’s employment. There is no evidence in proof of these monetary claims. In the circumstances I have no hesitation in refusing them for being vague and unsubstantiated. Even exhibit CW1E 1-2, did not help matters. The claimant did not establish how he arrived at these monetary claims. UNIVERSITY OF JOS V DR. M. C. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478. As pointed out earlier the claimant is only entitled to one month notice or payment for the period of notice and any other entitlement. The claimant is therefore entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice for wrongful termination/dismissal. He is also entitled to the salary of September 2010, which he stated that was not paid to him. For the avoidance, the claimant’s case succeeds but only in terms of the following orders: (a) It is declared that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant was wrongful. (a) It is hereby declared that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N21.280.00 being the payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice. (b) It is accordingly ordered that the defendant shall pay to the claimant the said sum of N21.280.00 (c) The claimant is entitled to the sum of N21,280.00 being payment of his unpaid September 2010, salary. (d) Cost in the sum of N100,000.00 is awarded against the defendant in favour of the claimant. (e) All sums payable including cost are to be paid within 30 days of this judgment; failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until fully paid. Judgment is entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.