Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts dated17/6/16, the Claimant approached this Court and sought - ''The sum of One Billion, One Hundred and Eighty-one Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-six Naira Eighty kobo (N1,181,295,436.80) only being special and general damages for personal (gunshot) injury sustained by the Claimant in the course of his employment with the Defendant, and for subsisting injury associated therewith; and for the wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant''. Included in the processes filed by the Claimant are witness deposition, list of witness as well as list and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. On 1/8/16, the Defendant filed a statement of defence alongside all the requisite frontloaded processes. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 24/10/17 and testified in chief by adopting his witness deposition dated 17/6/16. Claimant also tendered 36 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. C1 - Exh. C36. Claimant further adopted his deposition dated 31/1/17 as his additional evidence in chief. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his pleadings and evidence led is that he was employed in 2007 by the defunct Oceanic International Bank Plc as a Regional Manager; that he was attacked and shot by armed robbers on his way to Lagos from Ogun State while travelling on an official duty; that he sustained spinal cord injury from the armed robbery attack; that as a result of the incident, his health was in a critical state and as such required urgent medical attention; consequently, the Defendant took immediate care of him by ensuring that he had proper medical care and attention including but not limited to flying him to South Africa to receive proper medical care; that while he was away receiving medical care, the Defendant ensured that his salaries were paid until he resumed work; that on 4/1/16 his employment was subsequently terminated pursuant to a redundancy exercise and was paid all entitlements and benefits. It is the case of the Claimant that the termination of his employment was wrongful; that the Defendant owed him a duty of care to ensure that he was being escorted by Police Officers to protect him from armed robbers and that the Defendant is continuously liable to cater for him and his entire dependant including his aged mother as a result of the injury he sustained. While being cross examined, the Claimant testified that he started work on 11/4/06; that at the point when he had accident he was Regional Manager in Ogbomosho; that his duty was to supervise the Branches under him; that he worked all days of the week; that he is required to go to work both on Saturday and Sunday; that at the point of exit he was Area Manager; that as Area Manager he disseminated information and instruction to his subordinates through phone, memo, mails and during meetings; that Zonal Head was my head; that he got information from him the way he did send to his subordinates; that if he went to attend meeting which required him to sleep overnight he would apply for cash and retire same later; that as a Regional Manager he had an official car; that he was to attend a one day meeting when he had the accident; that he was to return the following day; that he does not have the mail inviting him to the meeting because the mail is with the Defendant; that he does not have any document before the court showing that the Defendant advanced him money for the meeting leading to the accident; that there were four people in the car; that he was the only one shot by the Armed Robbers. The witness added that the Defendant took care of his medical bill till he returned from South Africa but not till he recovered; that the Defendant paid him salaries in accordance with its policies before it stopped paying him; that he had to go for medical treatment and the Defendant approved a loan on compassionate ground to be able to do so; that on his return his branch grew remarkably well; that the Defendant laid off staff due to non performance; that he has no case of staff not coming to work without reason; that he did not go on leave without approval and that when he was downgraded his salary was not reduced. Claimant further called on Dr. Nteigbanam Israel Uran-York as CW2. Witness adopted his witness deposition of 1/2/18 as his evidence in chief and was cross examined. Under cross examination, CW2 stated that Oceanic Health Management Ltd is a direct subsidiary of Oceanic International bank Plc; that all health issues of the Oceanic Bank Plc are being managed by Oceanic Health Management Ltd; that he was the Managing Director of the Oceanic Health Management Ltd at a point; that the Managing Director of Oceanic Bank Plc is the Chairman of the Board of Oceanic Health Management Ltd and gave instruction to the Managing Director of the Oceanic Health Management Ltd; that he was not a member of the Board of the Oceanic Bank but whenever health issues arose he was always invited by the Board to give opinion; that there are other subsidiaries of Oceanic Bank such Oceanic Insurance Co Ltd, Oceanic life Assurance Company Ltd & Oceanic Registrar Ltd; that he was not a member of the Board of Oceanic Registrars Ltd; that he was on the Board of Oceanic Insurance Co Ltd and Oceanic Life Assurance Co Ltd; that all subsidiaries of the Bank take instructions from the Bank; that the subsidiaries of Oceanic Bank Plc would normally communicate between themselves via phone calls, letters, e-mails; that the subsidiaries also communicate with Oceanic Bank International Plc via phone calls, e-mail & letters; that it is not in all cases that phone call conversations are confirmed or followed by letters or e-mails; that it was not when Claimant suffered gunshot that he first met him; that Mr. Kola Ayeye – Executive Director of the Defendant informed him that the Claimant was injured while on official duty; that it was his recommendation that the Claimant should be given a regulated work schedule as he could bear as a patient; that he did not recommend that Claimant should be given a lesser task; that he only recommended work schedule as a patient; that the relationship of Employer/Employee is regulated by the terms and conditions of engagement; that he is not aware of all the terms & conditions of employment of the Claimant and that the Claimant has a file with the Defendant. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant opened its defence on23//5/18. It called on Dehinbo Francis who adopted his witness deposition of 3/8/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh. D4. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was employed as a Manager in the Oceanic International Bank Plc which was subsequently taken over by the Defendant; that the Claimant was attacked and shot by armed robbers while travelling which caused the claimant to suffer a spinal cord injury; that although, the Claimant was not on official duty when the robbery incident occurred, the Defendant immediately swung into action and took care of the Claimant’s medical bills including flying the Claimant to South Africa for medical treatment; that it is the policy of the Bank to take care of any of its staff that suffers an accident, either while on official duty or not; that the claimant was redeployed to the defendant’s Ota branch so as to be near to his home and avoid any form of stress without demoting him nor decreasing his salary; that the Claimant’s employment was subsequently terminated in pursuance of a redundancy exercise carried out by the Defendant which affected a number of staff including; that the Claimant was paid all his entitlements and benefits upon termination of his employment; that prior to the armed robbery incident, the claimant had been the benefit of a mortgage facility of =N=30,000,000 (Thirty Million Naira) which is yet to be fully liquidated by the claimant as the sum of =N=6,000,000.00 (Six Million Naira) remain outstanding but that no demand had been made on the Claimant because of his health condition. Under cross examination, witness testified that he joined Ecobank in December 2005; that he was in Oceanic Bank; that he was made a staff of Ecobank from Oceanic Bank; that he has personal knowledge of the accident leading to this case; that following the accident Oceanic Bank took up responsibility for the treatment of the Claimant; that if the Claimant had been shot in his house as long as he was a staff of the Bank would have taken care of him; that Oceanic Bank was responsible for flying the Claimant to South Africa for treatment; that the Claimant did not consult the Bank’s Health Management Organisation (HMO); that he only requested for a loan of =N=4m from the Defendant to travel to South Africa for treatment after relapse of his ailment; that it was only when the Claimant applied for a loan that the Defendant became aware of the relapse in his health situation; that when the relapse occurred the 2nd time the claimant consulted the HMO which later advised Defendant & Defendant foot the medical bill again. Witness testified further that before the accident Claimant was a Regional Manager on Senior Manager grade & particular salary; that after the accident Claimant was moved to a Branch as a Branch Manager but on the same salary of a Regional Manager and that after the accident Claimant was moved from Ogbomosho to Ota very close to his home & Doctors. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel The final written address of the Defendant was dated 2/7/18 and filed 4/7/18. The lone issue set down for determination by Counsel is whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought. Learned Counsel submitted that the Court should discountenance the testimony of the DW2 because he was evasive of the questions put to him in cross examination; that the only ground upon which the Court can grant a claim for wrongful termination is if the employment was not terminated in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of employment citing Isheno v. Julius Berger Nigeria Plc (2008)6 NWLR (Pt. 1084) 582 at 609; that the Claimant having been paid a month's salary in lieu of notice in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract he could not be heard to say the termination of his employment was wrongful. Counsel further submitted that what was expected of the Defendant is to take reasonable care for the safety of its employees; that the letter of employment of the Claimant did not contain a provision for him to be provided Police escort in the normal course of his employment and hence the Defendant's duty of care to the Claimant did not include provision of Police escort. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold. Finally, Counsel submitted that the Defendant is not liable in damages to the Claimant. He prayed the Court to so hold. Counsel to the Claimant filed a 20-page final written address on 8/2/19. It was dated 5/2/19. In it, learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows - Whether in the light of the evidence before the Honourable Court, the Claimant established his case on the balance of probabilities and is entitled to the reliefs claimed. Arguing this issue, learned Counsel submitted that while an employer may terminate an employment for any reason or no reason at all where a reason is adduced it must accord with logic and not unfounded allegations and that in the instant case it is glaring from the evidence before the Court particularly paragraphs 82 and 86 of the statement of facts that the Defendant laid off the Claimant solely to avoid taking responsibility of taking adequate care of him. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold. On the duty of care, learned Counsel submitted that the Defendant owes a duty of care to the Claimant to take reasonable measure necessary to prevent any occurrence that could result in harm and where injury has occurred to take proper steps to manage and take care of the situation and that a breach of duty arises when the person who has a duty of care towards another fails or neglects to live up to expectation citing Fijabi Adebo Holdings Limited v. Nigeria Bottling Co. Plc (2017)All FWLR (Pt. 882) 1222 & Adeta v. Nigerian Army (2016)All FWLR (Pt. 855) 179. Counsel submitted that the injury of the Claimant is a continuous one and that by the evidence of CW2, the Management is under an obligation to cater for the medical needs and attention of the Claimant for an indefinite period. Counsel prayed the Court to so hold. Respecting the issue of damages, learned Counsel submitted that following argument already canvassed, it is evident that the Defendant ailed in his responsibilities to the Claimant; that that failure has left the Claimant in a precarious situation where he is now dependent on drugs and people for the rest of his life and that all these entitle the Claimant to damages citing Ighosewe v. Delta Steel Company Limited (2008)All FWLR (Pt. 410) 741. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to grant the claims sought. Learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a Reply Address on Points of law on 13/3/19. 5. Decision I have read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side of this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial as well as watched their demeanor. I also heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. I have in addition patiently reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. I note that each side adopts a lone issue for the just determination of this case. I also note that indeed the lone issue adopted by each side has the same content. Both sides agreed that the focus of the Court should be whether the Claimant has proved his entitlement to the reliefs he sought. I therefore adopt the lone issue as set down by the Claimant for the determination of this case as follows - Whether in the light of the evidence before the Honourable Court the Claimant established his case on the balance of probabilities and is entitled to the reliefs claimed. The facts of this case appear rather simple as revealed by the pleadings filed by the parties. By the pleadings, the Claimant Gbite Mathew Ajayi Adegoke was an employee of the defunct Oceanic International Bank Plc which was subsequently acquired by the Defendant. While on the way to Lagos for an official meeting, the Claimant was attacked by armed robbers and sustained a spinal cord injury as a result of gun shots from the armed robbers. Claimant confirmed that the bill for his medical treatment was borne by the Defendant; that he was yet to be fully healed when the Defendant disengaged him and paid disengagement benefit to his account though he protested and that the Defendant failed in its duty of care to him leading to the injury sustained and that this suit is for remedies for the wrong arising from the breach of the duty of care owed by the Defendant to him. The claim of the Claimant is for ''The sum of One Billion, One Hundred and Eighty-one Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-six Naira Eighty kobo (N1,181,295,436.80) only being special and general damages for personal (gunshot) injury sustained by the Claimant in the course of his employment with the Defendant, and for subsisting injury associated therewith; and for the wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant''. The Claimant had alleged among others that his employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. It is trite law in a suit alleging wrongful termination of employment, the burden of proof is on the employee to lay before the Court the contract between him and his employer and bring to the fore how the termination of his employment failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his engagement. See Morohunfolu v. Kwara State College of Technology (1990)4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 at 519. See also Ajuzi v. FBN Plc (2016) LPELR. The only document exhibited before me in the guise of a contract between the parties is Exh. GM5 - Offer of Employment. It was dated 24/2/06. Under the clause on Termination, the exhibit states that - ''On confirmation of appointment, termination by either party shall be by at least one-month notice in writing or cash in lieu''. Now, Claimant's appointment was confirmed by Exh. GM2 with effect from 1/1/08. The employment of the Claimant was terminated by Exh. GM29. In its first paragraph, the exhibit states thus - ''We write to advise that in line with the terms of your contract of employment with the Bank, the Bank is hereby exercising its right to determine the contract, effective January 12, 2016 because your services are no longer required by the Bank''. Now, could it be said that the employment of the Claimant was wrongfully terminated? I answer in the negative. It is a settled law that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of contract voluntarily entered into. See Asikpo v. Access Bank (2015) LPELR-25845(CA). When then the Court is approached for some form of intervention, all that the Court could do is to simply give effect to clear and unambiguous intents of the parties as revealed from their contract document. See GTB v. Fox Glove Nigeria Limited (2016) LPELR-(CA). I thus find and hold that the Defendant acted within its right when it terminated the employment of the Claimant and that the said act was not wrongful. It remains to determine whether the Claimant is entitled to the sum of One Billion, One Hundred and Eighty-one Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-six Naira Eighty kobo (=N=1,181,295,436.80) only being special and general damages for personal (gunshot) injury sustained by the Claimant in the course of his employment with the Defendant and for subsisting injury associated therewith. The crux of the Claimant's case against the Defendant is one of negligence. More particularly, the Claimant had averred in paragraph 95 of his statement of facts thus - ''i. .... ''ii. ..... ''iii. ...... ''iv. That the category of negligence not being closed, the Defendant owed the Claimant a duty of care to ensure that in the course of the Claimant’s official journey or trip to Lagos on the day he was shot by armed robbers, he was protected from armed robbery attack on the dangerous Lagos– Ibadan Expressway, by being provided an armed police escort in the same manner as when huge sums of money was being transported by the Defendant through the Lagos Ibadan Expressway or on any inter-states or intra-state route. ''v. That the Defendant breached the said duty of care it owed the Claimant to ensure that in the course of the Claimant’s official journey or trip to Lagos on the day he was shot by armed robbers, he was protected from armed robbery attack on the dangerous Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, by being provided an armed police escort in the same manner as when huge sums of money was being transported by the Defendant through the Lagos Ibadan Expressway or on any inter-states or intra-state route. ''vi. That the Defendant is liable to cater for the resultant damage arising from the breach of the duty of care the Defendant owed the Claimant while he was discharging his work related responsibility, and that the Defendant is liable to pay the Claimant special and general damages in respect of the gun-shot injury-damages that is sufficient to cover his medical and allied expenses, and loss of earnings for the rest of his (work) life-[ that is until the Claimant attains his expected retirement age, and till the end of his days] -, and which is commensurate to the degree of pain, trauma, and psychological injury he has borne and which he is still bearing''. In order therefore for the Claimant to be entitled to his claims for damages in negligence, he is under an obligation to prove by credible, cogent and admissible evidence all the elements of negligence. Has the Claimant discharged the burden of proof placed on him to succeed? What then is negligence? What does a Claimant need to prove in order to succeed for an award of damages in negligence? In Kabo Air Limited v. Mohammed (2014) LPELR-23614(CA), Abiru JCA took time out to espouse on what is meant by negligence in the following words - '' ... Now, negligence is the omission to do something, which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations that ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. It means lack of proper care and attention; careless behavior or conduct; a state of mind which is opposed to intention and the breach of a duty of care imposed by common law and statute resulting in damage to the complainant. Negligence is the failure to exercise the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would have exercised in a similar situation. It is also any conduct that falls below the legal standard established to protect others against unreasonable risk of harm - Universal Trust Bank of Nigeria Plc v. Ozoemena (2007) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 448, Okwejiminor v. Gbakeji (2008) 5 NWLR (Pt. 1079) 172 and Diamond Bank Plc v. Partnership Investment Co Ltd (2009) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67." Negligence is said to be a fluid principle, which has to be applied to the most diverse conditions and problems of human life. See Ojo v. Ghahoro & ors (2006) LPELR-2383 per Ogbuagu JSC. Negligence is a question of fact not law. Therefore each case must be decided in the light of its own facts and circumstances. The facts of a case bordering on negligence must be proved by the person who asserts same. This is in tandem with the age-long established principle of law that he who asserts must prove the assertion. See Okorie v. Unakalamba (2013) LPELR-22508 (CA).Therefore failure to prove particulars of negligence pleaded is fatal to the plaintiffs case. See Alhaji Otaru and Sons Ltd vs Idris (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt 606) 330. In a case of this nature, that is a case allegedly founded on negligence, in order for a Claimant to succeed, this Claimant must prove the following - (a) that the defendant owed a duty of care to the Claimant; (b) that the duty of care was breached and (c) that the plaintiff suffered damages arising from such breach. See SPDC Nigeria Limited v. Ikontia & Ors. (2010) LPELR-4910 (CA). It is imperative to bear in mind that a mere occurrence of an accident is not a proof of negligence. Negligence is also not proved simply because a party sustains an injury in the course of his employment. Thus, where there is duty of care and that duty is breached without an injury sustained there will be no award of damages. Secondly, where there is no duty of care but a party sustains an injury, no damages will lie for negligence. Thirdly, where there is no duty of care and accident occurs leading to injury, the Court will not intervene to award damages. The point has earlier been made that negligence is a question of fact to be proved. The proof required is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. A party seeking damages in negligence must prove the 3 identified elements of negligence. He must prove the existence of a duty of care. He must prove the breach of that duty of care. He must also prove the damage resulting from the breach of the duty of care owed. The circumstances leading to the accident, the nature and extent of the accident must be pleaded and cogent evidence adduced in support. It is then that the Court will be able to determine whether partially or wholly, either the Claimant or the Defendant, caused the accident. See Abubakar & Anor. v. Joseph (2008) LPELR-48 (SC). I have taken time in setting out the law on negligence so as to prepare ground for the next enquiry which is whether the Claimant in this case has discharged the burden of proof on him to be entitled to a positive disposition by this Court. Does the Defendant owe the Claimant any duty of care? The fact that the Claimant was an employee of the Defendant was not disputed by either side. It is also not challenged the fact that the Claimant sustained the injury in this case in the course of the discharge of his duties as an employee of the Defendant. These unchallenged facts go to establish the simple fact of existence of employer/employee relationship between the parties, at least prior to the occurrence of the accident leading to the institution of this case. The existence of employment relationship, even at Common Law, imposes a duty of care on the employer respecting his employees. The Court of Appeal in Kabo Air Limited v. Mohammed (2014)LPELR-23614(CA) reiterated the position thus - "...it is settled law that it is the duty of an employer, acting personally or through his servants or agents, to take reasonable care for the safety of his workmen and other employees in the course of their employment. This duty extends in particular to the safety of the place of work, the plant and machinery and the method and conduct of work''. The Court, while noting that the duty of care of an employer to the employee is not restricted to the matters stated, further approved the Judgment of Lord Wright in Wilsons and Clyde Coal Co. Ltd v. English (1938) AC 57 at 84 that - "The whole course of authority consistently recognizes a duty which rests on the employer, and which is personal to the employer, to take reasonable care of the safety of his workmen, whether the employer be an individual, a firm or a company, and whether or not the employer takes any share in the conduct of the operations." It suffices from the pleadings of the parties and the unchallenged evidence led to hold that the Defendant as the employer of the Claimant owed the Claimant a duty of care. Has the Claimant proved the second element of negligence which is that the duty of care owed was breached? It is not sufficient that there exists a duty of care owed by the Defendant to the Claimant to be entitled to award of damages. The Claimant is under an obligation to prove that the Defendant breached that duty of care. The mere occurrence of an accident is not enough to make a claim for damages. The accident must be linked to the fault or failings of the Defendant. See Avon Crown Caps & Containers Nig. Limited v. Bamigboye (2005)17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 275. The summary of the case of the Claimant is that while he was travelling to Lagos to attend an official engagement he was attacked by armed robbers and sustained a spinal cord injury from the gunshots received from the armed robbers. His further argument was that the Defendant owed him a duty of care to provide Police protection for him on that trip similar to what was normally provided by the Defendant when moving huge sum of cash from one branch to the other or from one State of the Federation to the other. The contention of the Claimant raises the question as to the ambit or extent or limit of the duty of care owed to sustain a claim for damages in negligence. It was part of the evidence in chief of the Claimant that on 11/7/09 that while travelling to Lagos for an official meeting he was attacked by armed robbers. Yet under cross examination Claimant said that he does not have the mail inviting him to the meeting because the mail is with the Defendant and that he does not have any document before the court showing that the Defendant advanced him money for the trip leading to the accident. The expectation of the Claimant in alleging negligence against the Defendant is that the Defendant ought to provide him with Police escort in the trip to Lagos to attend the meeting. In Nigeria Breweries Plc v. Audu (2009) LPELR-8863(CA), the Court of Appeal pointed out that the question of what is duty of care in negligence and to whom it is owed has to be approached in two stages. First, one has to ask whether as between the wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighbourhood such that in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negate, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty of the class of persons to whom it is owed or the damage to which a breach of it may give rise. See also Enyika v. Shell B. P. Petroleum Development Company (1997) 10 NWLR (Pt.526) 638 & Aliyu v. Aturu (1999) 7 NWLR (Pt.611) 536. It would appear to me and so I find it that that expectation is certainly on the wrong side. That expectation is also unreasonable. That expectation is also without a strong foundation for sustenance. Is it the policy of the Defendant to so provide Police escort for any of its staff or staff in the same category as the Claimant when ever such staff are to travel from their station to attend official meeting or engagement with or on behalf of the Defendant? Is such an obligation part of the terms and conditions of the contract between the parties? Claimant did not allege that the Defendant had control over the armed robbers or their activities. Claimant did not allege that the armed robbers were the employees of the Defendant or answerable in any form or guise to the Defendant. There is also no evidence before me to the effect that the Defendant ought to have foreseen that the Claimant would be attacked by armed robbers on the day of the accident. I find no element of carelessness on the part of the Defendant. I find and hold that the duty of care of the Defendant to its workforce including the Claimant does not extend to the provision of Police escort to the Claimant when undergoing a trip for official assignment. For, to hold otherwise would amount to placing the bulk of the rank and file of the Nigerian Police Force at the disposal of the Defendant while the majority of the citizenry will be left vulnerable. In any event, there is nothing in the contract of service between the parties - Exh. GM5 wherein it is provided that the Defendant is under an obligation to provide Police escort to the Claimant if and when the Claimant is to embark on a journey to attend an official engagement. From the evidence in chief of CW2, the Defendant had expended an amount in the range of almost =N=20,000,000.00 in travels, upkeeps and medical bills of the Claimant. By his evidence, a whopping sum of =N=12,000,000.00 was paid for the medical expenses of the Claimant while he went to South Africa. It is in consideration of all this that I find rather strange and unbelievable part of the evidence of CW2 to the effect that - ''... it was clear to the Management of Oceanic Bank Plc that since the Claimant suffered gunshot injury in the course of his work, the Management of Oceanic Bank Plc would not only bear the expenses being incurred but would also be responsible for the medical needs and attention of the Claimant for an indefinite period, for his lifetime''. I listened attentively to the testimony of this witness, his demeanor and response to questions put to him in cross examination. I also consider the fact and circumstances leading to the departure of the CW2 from a subsidiary of the Defendant. I do not believe especially this portion of his testimony. Indeed, Exh. GM23 negates the assertion of the witness. Exh. GM23 was written by the Defendant to the learned Counsel representing the Claimant. It was dated 7/1/15. In paragraph one of that exhibit, the Defendant had said thus - ''1. The Bank is not responsible for the gunshot wounds sustained by your Client. Your Client is well aware of this. Nonetheless, as a good corporate citizen, the Bank had expended funds for his treatment in addition to the health care of your Client was ordinarily entitled to under the applicable Health Management Plan (HMP) as an employee of the Bank, Indeed, your Client had vide a letter dated 6th November 2009 expressed utmost gratitude for the concern showed by the Bank in this regard. A copy is attached for ease of reference. Accordingly, the Bank is not under any obligation to bear the cost of his treatment beyond what is permissible under applicable HMP. Any additional payment thereto is at the Bank's sole discretion''. This is a clear and unambiguous declaration by the Defendant as to its limit of liabilities and financial responsibility to the Claimant. I hold that the Defendant is not under any obligation to be responsible for the medical needs and attention of the Claimant for an indefinite period or for his life time. It is my finding and hence holding that the Defendant has not breached any duty of care to the Claimant to make it liable in award of damages be it special or general. Before I draw curtain on this Judgment I am constrained to refer to page 19 of the final written address of the Claimant. In it, learned Counsel to the Claimant had stated thus - ''The damages the Claimant is seeking, has no connection with his employment being wrongfully terminated, rather the Claimant seeks damages that is considerably quantifiable to the injury he suffered while discharging his duties to the Defendant''. The above assertion is certainly in conflict with the claims and basis of the claims of the Claimant in this Court. The endorsement of the General Form of Complaint of the Claimant is for ''The sum of One Billion, One Hundred and Eighty-one Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Five Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirty-six Naira Eighty kobo (N1,181,295,436.80) only being special and general damages for personal (gunshot) injury sustained by the Claimant in the course of his employment with the Defendant, and for subsisting injury associated therewith; and for the wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant''. Even at that, the sum of money claimed as special damages is =N=1,081,295,436.80. The law relating to special damages is trite that being a sum certain, it must be strictly proved. See Julius Berger Nigeria Plc & Anor. v. Ugo (2015)LPELR-24408(CA). Claimant only made several assertions respecting his claim. There is no single document in proof of any of the various heads of claim. There is no convincing evidence laid before me to make a finding in favor of the Claimant that he is entitled to the special damages sought. See Kosile v. Folarin (1989)3 NWLR (Pt. 107) 1. Besides, Claimant listed cost of annual medical attention from his then age of 49 years till he attains age of 90 years. He seeks special damages for loss of income sustained for the remainder of his work-life which is put at 16 years as well as cost of procuring conveniences occasioned by the personal injury. Fact is what is the assurance that the Claimant will live up to age 90 years or that he will not live beyond that age? Again, would the Claimant have remained with the Defendant till age of retirement but for the injury he sustained? As pitiable as the condition and circumstances of the Claimant may be, unfortunately, he has failed to discharge the requisite burden of proof placed on him in order to receive positive judicial disposition. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimant for lack of proof by credible, cogent and admissible evidence. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge