Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By his General Form of Complaint, Statement of Facts & other frontloaded process, the Claimant's claims are as follows - ''By virtue of the Defendants' contractual breach the Claimant hereby claims against the Defendants jointly and severally the sum of =N=15 Million Naira (Fifteen Million Naira) being the special and general damages incurred by the Claimant''. The Defendants filed a joint statement of defence on 12/10/15 along with witness statement on oath, list of witness and copies of documents to be relied on at trial. 2. Case of the Claimant The trial of this case commenced on13/2/17 when the Claimant opened his case and testified in chief as CW1. CW1 adopted his witness deposition made on 19/5/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 4 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. EO1 - Exh. EO4. The case of the Claimant as revealed from the evidence led is that the 1st Defendant is a limited liability company registered, with the Corporate Affairs Commission (C.A.C), Abuja, Federal Capital Territory. It engages in Interior and Exterior Furnishing-decoration which has its head office in Lagos and branches at Agbara, Ogun and the F.C.T Abuja; that the 2nd Defendant is the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) to the 1st Defendant; that the 3rd Defendant is the 2nd Defendant’s wife, who is also the Managing Director to the 1st Defendant; that he was employed as Production Manager (Wrought Iron) by the 1st Defendant through a letter of Appointment dated 1st July, 2005 and signed by the 3rd Defendant; that on the 4th July, 2005, he resumed duties as a Production Manager (Wrought Iron) in the Defendants’ employ; that on the resumption of duty, on the 4th day of July, 2005 he was paid =N=77,000.00 per month as expressly stated in his letter of appointment; that as a result of his commitment, dedication and admirable performance, the 1st Defendant confirmed his appointment via a Letter of confirmation of appointment dated 7th November, 2006 and signed by the 2nd Defendant; that 1st Defendant via a letter stated the upward review of my salary to =N=100,000.00 per month; that his entire emolument which amounted from his salary increase which the Defendants’ owe him from November 2006 to August, 2008 is =N=420,000.00 (Four Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only); that the Defendants however, breached the contractual obligation by not paying his new salary of =N=100,000.00 and that regardless of his several demands made to the Defendants, the Defendants refused to pay his approved increased salary. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he joined Defendant on 4/4/05; that he does not know why his appointment was not confirmed within 6 months as stipulated in his letter of employment; that he resigned from Defendant; that he is self employed since he resigned for about 7 years now; that his salary was increased by =N=20,000.00 per month and same was not paid for 21 months; that he requested for the money severally but no positive response; that the request was verbal; that failure to pay him the amount on time caused a lot of hardship for him respecting payment of house rent and his children’s School Fees; that he received query while working with the Defendant; that when the Defendant failed to pay his money, he went to the High Court Ikeja in 2010 and that he is not aware of any other letter of confirmation apart from the one he tendered. 3. Case of the Defendants The Defendants opened their defence on 11/12/17 and called one Oluwadare Daniel as their lone witness. The witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated 12/10/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 2 documents as exhibits. There was no objection to the admissibility of the documents. They were thus admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1 & Exh. D2. The case of the Defendants is that the letter of confirmation of employment dated 7/11/06 which the Claimant relied on for this suit was never given to the Claimant; that though it was written by the Defendants, it was stolen by the Claimant in the open office of the 1st Defendant and that the authentic letter which receipt was acknowledged by the Claimant on 24/1/07 was served on the Claimant. Under cross examination, the witness stated that the Defendant issued only one letter of confirmation to the Claimant in January 2007 and Claimant acknowledged same; that Exh. EO2 was issued and signed by him but not given to the Claimant; that the Claimant was not issued query for removing letter dated 7/11/06 from the file in open office; that this is because he was not aware of the removal until he received Court processes including the said letter; that the Claimant was never reported to the Police for any criminal act while with the Defendants and that he did not respond to Claimant’s Solicitors letter. 4. Final Addresses of Counsel The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed 16/11/18. In it learned Counsel set down the following issues down for determination - 1.Whether this suit, which cause of action arose sometime in 2008 is statute barred. 2.Whether a Court of Law has the powers to examine all documents before her. 3.Whether there is any breach of contract herein. 4. Whether a Court is at liberty to draw inference in a case. 5.Whether the Claimant’s action herein is of liquidated demand. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant was issued a letter of confirmation in which his salary was increased but that he was not paid the increment; that a Court of law has power to examine all documents before it in reaching a decision citing Apuun v. R.T, N.S.K.T (2017)All FWLR (Pt. 867) 64; that the non-payment of the increment in salary was a breach of contract and that the sum claimed by the Claimant is a liquidated demand. Counsel prayed the Court to enter Judgment in favour of the Claimant. Counsel to the Defendants filed his final written address on 30/11/18 and set down the following issues for determination - (1). Whether the Claimant has satisfactorily proved that he is entitled to the Special and General Damages claimed in the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim, in view of the evidence tendered before this Honourable Court; and (2). Whether the purported letter of confirmation dated the 7th of November 2006 can effectively entitle the Claimant to the sum of =N=15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) Special and General damages claimed by him. Arguing these issues, Counsel submitted that Claimant failed to prove his entitlement to the sum of =N=15,000,000.0 as both special and general damages; that Claimant did not specially plead and strictly prove his entitlement to special damages as required by law citing Reynolds Construction Company Nigeria Limited v. Rocknoh Properties Company Limited (2003)24 WRN 1 (SC). On the second issue Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not controvert the averment of the Defendants that the alleged letter of confirmation being peddled by the Claimant was stolen by him and neither did he challenged or object to the tendering and admission of the real letter of confirmation of employment of the Claimant as tendered by the Defendants. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant for lack of proof. 5. Decision I have read and clearly understood all the processes filed by Counsel on either side of this case. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial, watched their demeanor and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I narrow the issue for the just determination of this case to whether the Claimant has proved his case to be entitled to the relief sought. In the adjudicatory system inherited from the British, it is always for he who approaches the Court for judicial redress to adduce cogent, credible and admissible evidence in proof of same. That piece of evidence may be oral, or documentary or both. Until that burden is discharged, there is no legal obligation on the Defendant to put forward any evidence in defence. This case is, to me, a rather straightforward one on the evidence led. Mr. Efeoghogho Orioko was employed by the 1st Defendant on a monthly salary of =N=70,000.00 by Exh. EO1. He alleged that his employment was confirmed by Exh. EO2 and his salary increased to =N=100,000.00 per month effective from 1/11/06 and that the increment of =N=30,000.00 per month was not paid to him for a period of 22 months. It is the case of the Defendants that the authentic letter of confirmation of appointment given to the Claimant which he acknowledged was Exh. D1 and that that exhibit did not contain any increment in the salary of the Claimant. On the basis of these facts, the Claimant approached this Court and prayed that - ''By virtue of the Defendants' contractual breach the Claimant hereby claims against the Defendants jointly and severally the sum of =N=15 Million Naira (Fifteen Million Naira) being the special and general damages incurred by the Claimant''. The relief sought by the Claimant as stated above is for both special and general damages. It is important to bear in mind that different rules of law apply respecting special and general damages. This is certainly understandable cognizance of the fact that both specie of damages are different. The law regarding to general damages presumes damages as flowing from the wrong complained of by the victim. Such damages in law need not be "specifically pleaded and strictly proved''. In other words, general damages are compensatory damages for harm resulting from the tort for which the party has sued. See the cases of UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC; Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100 and Afolabi v. Ola (2016) LPELR (CA).On the other hand special damages must be specially pleaded and strictly proved. Special damages 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. They are damages that are reduced to a "sum certain". See the case of Ngilari v. Mothercat Limited (1999) LPELR-1988 (SC); Kosile v. Folarin (1989) LPELR-1705 (SC) and Julius Berger Nigeria Plc & Anor. v. Ugo (2015)LPELR-24408(CA). Now, what percentage of the =N=15, 000,000.00 claimed by the Claimant is for special damages and what percentage is for general damages? There is no answer to this important question. This is aside from the fact that the Claimant did not plead any specific amount as special damages and neither did he adduce evidence in strict proof of same. Secondly, while no proof is required respecting general damages, same can only be awarded as compensation for harm done. In the instant case, the Claimant has failed to show the Court what conduct of the Defendants or of any of them has caused him any harm (and the harm) for which the Court is to award him general damages. Firstly, I find and hold that it is wrong for the Claimant to have muddled up his claim for damages by joining both special and general damages together without separating what amount is claimed as special damages and what amount is claimed as general damages. Secondly, I find and hold that there is no evidence adduced by the Claimant in proof of his entitlement to special damages as required by law. This is in addition to the fact that Claimant did not plead same as mandated by law. On this basis alone, this Court is entitled to dismiss the case of the Claimant for lack of proof and I so do. Aside from the above however, it is the evidence of the Claimant in chief as contained in paragraphs 10 & 11 of his statement on oath of 19/5/15 that - ''10. That 1st defendant via Exh. F.E.O 2 stated the upward review of my salary to N100,000.00k (One Hundred Thousand Naira) per month''. ''11. That my entire emolument which amounted from my salary increase which the Defendants owe me from November 2006 to August, 2008 is =N=420.000 Million (Four Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira Only''. On 11/12/17, learned Counsel successfully tendered Exh. D1 without objection from the Claimant or his Counsel. That exhibit seriously contradicted Exh. EO2 of the Claimant on issue of increase in his salary from =N=70,000.00 to =N=100,000.00 per month. Even under cross examination on 18/7/18, DW1 in response to a question stated that Exh. EO2 although was signed by him was never delivered to the Claimant. Indeed, learned Counsel did not elicit any evidence to contradict the fact that the Claimant stole the said Exh. EO2 from the open office of the 1st Defendant as maintained by the Defendants. Even at that, while the Claimant testified in chief that his outstanding salary increase with the Defendants was the sum of =N=420,000.00, yet he sought an order of this Court for payment of the sum of =N=15,000,000.00 to him as special and general damages. I find the claim of the Claimant ridiculously outrageous and without basis. A Court of law is not a Father Christmas neither is it a gambling avenue which a party can just approach with a mind boggling sum with the expectation that no matter what the Court would make some award no matter how small. There is no merit in this case. I dismiss it without hesitation. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge