Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims By a General Form of Complaint and statement of facts dated 20/5/15, the Claimant approached this Court and sought the following reliefs - 1. An order of this court compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of =N=58,000 (Fifty Eight Thousand Naira) representing his entitlements for the month of October, 2014. 2. An order of this Court awarding general damages to the Claimant in the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) against the Defendant. 3. Cost of this action. Claimant's Form 1 and statement of facts were accompanied by witness statement on oath, list of witness, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The Defendant entered an appearance to the suit and filed its sttatement of defence on 16/9/15. 2. Case of the Claimant The Claimant opened his case on 8/11/16, testified in chief by adopting his witness statement on oath dated 20/5/15 and tendered 5 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence without objection and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C5 respectively. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his evidence in chief is that he was offered an employment by the Defendant on a monthly salary of =N=56,000.00 (Fifty Six Thousand Naira); that his monthly entitlement was subsequently increased to =N=58,000.00 (Fifty Eight Thousand Naira); that he was employed as a contract staff; that under employment with the Defendant, he was given repeated assurances that his employment would be converted to a regular one but that the assurance was never met; that owing to the aforesaid reasons, he resigned his appointment by a letter dated 20/10/14; that he worked at the Defendant’s Company from September 2013 to the end of the month of October 2014; that the Defendant did not pay his salaries and other entitlements for the month of October 2014; that owing to the aforesaid failure of the Defendant to pay his Counsel by a letter dated 3/11/14 wrote to the Defendant to draw her attention to this; that he also seeks several damages in the sum of Three Million Naira (=N=3,000,000.00) only being several damages he suffered for the non-payment of his entitlements by the Defendant and that despite his demands his entitlements still remain unpaid. Under cross examination, the witness testified that his employment with the Defendant was not terminated; that he resigned his appointment with Defendant; that his resignation was to be effective same date of the letter; that he was a Site Surveyor with the Defendant; that he is not aware that he created some discomfort for Defendant by resigning with immediate effect; that as a Site Surveyor he was given a site to maintain for Defendant; that he was badly treated by Defendant while working with it; that he did not state it in the letter of resignation; that after he resigned, he did not go back to work for Defendant again; that he demanded for his October salary; that it was not in writing but verbal; that he had a discussion with the Project Manager who said he would not pay his October salary; that he was paid his salary from 1/1/13 to September 2014 and that while the case was in Court, Defendant called him to come for his salary. 3. Case of the Defendant On 7/11/17, the Defendant opened its defence. It called one Salako Dauda as its lone witness. The witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated on 6/11/17 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document for admission as exhibit. The case of the Defendant, in brief, is that though it called the Claimant to come and collect his October salary, Claimant did not give the required one month notice before leaving the employment of the Defendant. Under cross examination, the witness stated that he started working with the Defendant in 2009 as Administrative Officer; that he is still an Administrative Officer; that he was not working with the Claimant as a Site Surveyor; that he is not his site supervisor; that there is nothing before the Court as to why Claimant's appointment was not confirmed; that there was no complaint from Claimant’s Supervisor against the Claimant; that it is not fair that the Claimant's employment was not confirmed though there was no query issued or complaint against him and that Claimant was justified to have resigned and to have taken up another employment. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court and in accordance with the Rules of Court, learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 4-page final written address on 19/1/18. In the address, learned Counsel set down a lone issue as follows - Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claim. Arguing this issue, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant terminated his contract of service without giving the requisite notice; that where there is no written agreement as to the period of notice of resignation of contract of employment, the notice to be given must be reasonable citing UBN Plc v. Soares (2012)II NWL (Pt. 550); that although the Defendant was willing to pay the Claimant his salary for the month of October, the Claimant refused to come forward for same; that the Claimant not having given notice of termination to the Defendant is liable to pay damages to the Defendant citing WAEC v. Oshionebo (2006)12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258 and that in the circumstances of this case, the Claimant is not entitled to any damages not having given notice of intention to terminate the contract of employment to the Defendant. Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant for lacking in merit. The final written address of the Claimant, a three and half page document was dated 19/3/18 and filed on 20/3/18. The lone issue set down for determination by Counsel is: Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. In arguing this issue, learned Counsel submitted that either party to a contract of employment may terminate same at any time when performance of the contract becomes fundamentally different from what was initially contemplated by the parties citing NNPC v. Domiboye-Obu (1996)1 NWLR (Pt. 472) 655 at 671 & Agbo v. CBN (1996)10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370 at 377 ; that the Claimant resigned his employment, was not confirmed and hence was only to give a day notice as stipulated by the Defendant in the letter of employment citing Layade v. Panalpina (1996)6 NWLR (Pt. 456) 544 at 558 & Olanrewaju v. Afribank (2001)13 NWLR (Pt. 731) 691 at 712. Learned Counsel urged the Court to grant the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 5. Decision I have carefully read and understood all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I heard the oral testimonies of the witnesses called at trial and equally watched their demeanor. I, in addition, evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to be whether on the basis of the evidence led in this case, the Claimant is entitled to any or all the reliefs he sought. The age long principle of law which has long been generally accepted is that the burden is on he who asserts to discharge. The burden is usually accepted as discharged via only credible, cogent and admissible evidence. The imperative of proof is however dispensed with in the face of clear and unambiguous admission facts. For, it is trite position of the law that facts admitted need no further proof. It is important that I bring to the fore albeit briefly, salient but crucial admitted facts in this case. It is not disputed that the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant and was paid all his salaries, allowances and other entitlements on a monthly basis until the month of October 2014 when he wrote a letter to the General Manager of the Defendant resigning from the employment and that the Defendant was not given enough notice by the Claimant before the Claimant resigned from the Defendant establishment. The 3 reliefs sought by the Claimant are as follows - 1. An order of this court compelling the Defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of =N=58,000. 00 (Fifty Eight Thousand Naira) representing his entitlements for the month of October, 2014; 2. An order of this court awarding general damages to the Claimant in the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) against the Defendant and 3. Cost of this action. The first relief sought by the Claimant is for an order of Court compelling the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of Fifty Eight Thousand Naira (=N=58,000.00) representing his entitlements for the month of October, 2014. DW1, Dauda Salako, while testifying in chief did not deny the fact that the Claimant was not paid his salary for the month of October 2014. Among other things, the witness had testified that when the Claimant tendered his letter of resignation, Claimant's supervisor persuaded him to give the required one month's notice and that despite the fact that Claimant did not give the requisite notice the Defendant was still willing to pay the October salary but that the Claimant refused to collect same. Witness added that the Claimant did not give the one month's notice prior to his resignation of appointment. Exh. C3 is the Notification For Resignation tendered by the Claimant. It was dated 20/10/14. That letter was to become effective same day 20/10/14. Fact remains that the Claimant was entitled to be paid salary for a month's services rendered. October has 31 days. Claimant resigned effectively from the Defendant on 20/10/14. That was before the month ended. As at the time of his resignation, the month had about 10 days outstanding before it ended. I hold that the Claimant is entitled to a prorated salary for the month of October 2014. The Defendant is here ordered to pay to the Claimant his prorated salary for 20 days of the month of October, 2014. I so find and so hold. The Claimant has also sought an order of this court awarding general damages to the Claimant in the sum of =N=3,000,000.00 (Three Million Naira) only against the Defendant. The Court in Afolabi v. Ola (2016) LPELR-(CA) following UBN Plc. v. Ajabule (2011)18 NWLR (Pt. 1278) 152 SC; Husseni v. Mohammed (2015) 3 NWLR (Pt. 1445) 100, reiterated the position of the law that general damages is damages which the law presumes 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. Now, what is the damage caused the Claimant by the Defendant for which the Claimant ought be compensated by award of general damages? I have examined the whole gamut of this case. I am unable to place a finger on any such wrong. The main claim of the Claimant is an order for the payment of the sum of =N=58,000.00 being unpaid salary for the month of October, 2014. It is for that failure on the part of the Defendant that he sought award of =N=3,000,000.00 as general damages. I have evidence of the Claimant under cross examination before me to the effect that the Defendant called him to come and collect his salary but that he did not go. He ordinarily ought to have. If the Claimant had answer the call of the Defendant to come forward for his salary, there would not have been any need for this litigation. In any event, even the facts of this case as revealed from pleadings and evidence have shown to me and any discerning mind that the Claimant did not do what was expected of him for the Court to have a positive disposition towards him. He left his employment without giving requisite notice to his employer. This singular fact among others, he did not deny. I refuse to award any sum of money as general damages there being no basis for same. In its statement of defence and evidence in chief, the Defendant had contended that the Claimant resigned with immediate effect and that he failed to give a month's notice as required. These averments and evidence were not challenged or controverted by the Claimant in any form or guise. The law is trite that facts not disputed, or facts not in issue or facts not specifically denied are deemed clearly established. See Reptico S.A. Geneva v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2013)14 LPELR-20662 & National Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation Commission & Ors. v. Ajibola Johnson & Ors. (2019)2 NWLR (Pt. 1656)247 at 261. However, aside from the averments of the Defendant there is no other evidence in support of the one month notice argument as canvassed. Indeed, under Exh. C1 which is the offer of appointment letter given to the Claimant it was stated in it that ''In case you were(sic) found to be unsuitable during the probation period, your appointment may be terminated in accordance with the Nigeria Joint Industrial Council Agreement (Article 5) by giving you one-day in lieu of notice''. The available evidence show that the employment of the Claimant was not confirmed and that by Exh. C3 he resigned his employment with effect from 20th October, 2014. That exhibit was also dated 20/10/14. Even at that the Claimant did not give the necessary one day notice as required by Exh. C1. For, a one day notice given on 20/10/14 would expire on 21/10/14. I hold that the Claimant failed to comply with the terms and conditions of his employment respecting length of notice to give. I hold that the failure on the part of the Claimant is a wrong for which the Defendant is entitled to be compensated in damages. In Obanye v. Union Bank Plc (2018) LPELR (SC) citing Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum (1993)4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512, Fakuade v. OAUTH (1993) 5 NWLR (Pt. 291) 47 & Osisanya v. Afribank (Nigeria) Plc (2007) LPELR-2809(SC), the apex Court held that where the parties have agreed that the contract of employment may be terminated by either party upon the giving of notice or the payment of the equivalent salary for the period of notice, the measure of damages for wrongful termination or dismissal is the amount the servant would have earned over the period of notice. Consequently, the Claimant is ordered to pay to the Defendant his one day wages as damages for the wrongful termination of the contract of employment between the parties. This case was filed on 20/5/15. The main claim of the Claimant was the payment of his October 2014 entitlement. That entitlement was in the sum of Fifty Eight Thousand Naira only. Both parties have retained the services of learned Counsel. Court processes were filed by Counsel on either side. The cost of filing Court processes by each side may be in the range of the sum claimed. This is aside from the cost of each side retaining Counsel to prosecute and defend this case. In addition to all this, the cost of transportation to Court by parties and Counsel must not be ignored. Yet, time is said to be money. Going by the facts and outcome of this case one is compelled to ask whether the entire trouble is really worth the while. The leadership of the Judiciary of this country has continued to urge litigants of all shades to not hesitate to make a resort to utilisation of alternative dispute resolution options in resolving their dispute. The forum of the Court rather than being the first port of call must always be the last resort after efforts at amicable resolution have failed. Learned Counsel must be disposed to explore possibility of resolution through any of the hybrids of Alternative Dispute Resolution instead of taking out Writ of Summons at every opportunity. The intervention here is in the interest of parties concerned, Counsel, the Bench and the society at large. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, 1. The Defendant is ordered to pay to the Claimant prorated salary for 20 days being the Claimant's salary for the 20 days he worked in the month of October 2014. 2. The Claimant is ordered to pay to the Defendant his one day wages as damages for the wrongful termination of his contract of employment with the Defendant. 3. I make no order as to cost. 4. Judgment is entered accordingly ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge