Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims The Claimant approached this Court via his General Form of Complaint & Statement of Facts together with all other requisite frontloaded processes and sought the following reliefs against the Defendant - 1. A Declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant by the Defendant was illegal and contrary to the Department of Petroleum Resources Guidelines and Procedures for the Release of Staff in the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry, Labor Law and international best practices. 2. An order of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay the sum of =N=5,293,749.00 (Five Million, Two Hundred and Ninety Three Thousand, Seven Hundred and Forty Nine Naira) only being unpaid 3 months’ salary and unclaimed leave allowance. 3. General and Exemplary damages in the sum of =N=5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) only for stress and health challenges sustained by the Claimant while working for the Defendants. 4. The sum of =N=500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only being the cost of instituting this suit. 5. And for such further order(s) as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The Defendant filed its statement of defence on 3/6/16 complying with the Rules of Court. 2. Case of the Claimant Claimant opened his case on 27/3/17 when he testified as CW1, adopted his written statement on oath dated 16/10/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 5 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted without objection and marked as Exh. SA1 - Exh. SA5. Under cross examination, the defence tendered 2 additional documents as exhibit. Same were admitted and marked as Exh. SA6. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his evidence in chief is that he used to be an employee of the Defendant; that the Defendant is a company doing business in the Oil and Gas industry in Nigeria, Dubai UAE and other countries; that he was employed as Nigeria Content Manager, a Senior Management position to work for the Defendant’s group of companies since 2014; that he was given a contract of employment dated 15/1/15 with conditions of a senior management staff; that he carried on his duties without going on leave or paid Leave Allowance for the year; that he was shocked to receive a letter terminating his employment with the Defendant dated 12/3/15; that the Defendant deliberately embarked on anti-labour practices; that the Defendant Refused/neglected to abide by the Department of Petroleum Resources’ Guidelines and Procedures for the Release of Staff in the Oil and Gas Industry, Labor Law and international best practices; that he was not paid any severance package as obtains in the Oil & Gas Industry and international best practices as the Defendant is an international company; that other staffers who were relieved of their jobs before and after him were paid severance packages and that the refusal/neglect to pay him any severance package was due to discrimination and may be racial undertone; that in the course of all these troubles he never got any assistance from the Defendant whether monetary or otherwise; that the Defendant’s action has disrupted his career growth made it difficult for him to get another job as there was not justifiable reason for the treatment meted on him and that he made several demands on the Defendant for the payment of his entitlement and outstanding Leave Allowance but the Defendant willfully refused to pay same. Under cross examination, Claimant testified that a contract of employment was attached to Exh. SA1; that aside from Exh. SA1 and Exh. SA61-7 no other contract regulate his relationship with the Defendant; that he did not receive Exh. SA2; that it was only shown to him by Human Resources on 12/3/15; that he did not refuse to sign for the letter; that the first time he saw Exh. SA3 was about 2 years before the Defendant received it; that Exh. SA3 dated 5/3/15 was the same Document he saw in 2013; that Exh. SA3 was not signed when he saw it in 2013; that Exh. SA3 has things to do with expenditure quotas; that his Lawyer obtained Exh. SA3; that he had not seen Exh. SA3 until his Lawyer obtained it; that the 3 months' salary he sought was for April – June after the termination of his appointment; that after termination of his appointment he sent an e-mail to Claude Aleman and Human Resources of the Defendant replied to same and that there were also e-mail exchanges between him and the Human Resources on the issue. 3. Case of the Defendant The Defendant commenced its defence of this suit on 4/7/17. Defendant called one Hadiza Adukonu as its lone witness. The witness adopted her witness deposition dated 3/6/16 as her evidence in chief and tendered one document as exhibit. The document was admitted without objection and marked as Exh. D1. The case of the Defendant is that it employed the Claimant on a fixed term contract for a period of six months which was perfectly legal at the time of the employment and remains lawful under Nigerian law; that the Claimant’s employment was on a short term basis as Nigerian Content Manager as part of Defendant’s business development strategy and this strategy was predicated on a projected improvement in the investment climate and improved business opportunities in the oil and gas industry; that it was compelled to change its business strategy due to the massive depression in the oil and gas industry resulting in lack of business opportunities in the industry; that at all times material leading to the termination of the Claimant’s employment, neither the Claimant nor the Defendant was aware of the existence of the DPR Guidelines and Procedure for the Release of Staff in the Oil and Gas industry and accordingly, the contract of employment did not contemplate, incorporate either by reference or otherwise, or regulated by the Guidelines; that the parties were unaware of the existence of the DPR Guidelines and Procedures for the Release of Staff in the Oil and Gas industry is evidenced by Claimant not mentioning the Guidelines in his letter dated April 1, 2015 and April 29, 2015; that the Claimant was not aware of the Guidelines and therefore did not challenge the termination of his employment for non – compliance with the Guidelines; that rather, all the Claimant was demanding for in these letters were his alleged terminal benefits which he is not entitled to the same not having in fact been provided in Claimant’s contract of employment; that the DPR Guidelines were not published and did not come into force as of March 12, 2015 when the letter for termination was issued or April 4, 2015 when the termination took effect; that the DPR is not a party to the contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant and therefore that the DPR Guidelines is an unlawful interference with the contract and is accordingly illegal, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and that the Claimant is not entitled to a pay of severance benefits or any outstanding claim on entitlements. Under cross examination, witness stated that she has worked for 6 years from 2011 to date; that the DPR Guidelines first came to her knowledge at the end of April 2015; that she was not aware that the Guidelines were in existence before then; that she is not involved with respect to termination of employment of expatriates but that she is aware that expatriates whose appointments are terminated are always paid their entitlements. 4. Submissions of learned Counsel The final written address of the Defendant was dated and filed on 24/11/17. In it, learned Counsel set down the following issues for determination - 1. Whether the Defendant’s termination of the Claimant’s contract of employment was valid and legal. 2. Whether Claimant is entitled to the monetary claims made against the Defendant. Arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant confirmed under cross examination that his employment was regulated by his offer of employment dated 15/1/15 and the Contract of Employment Agreement executed on the same date and that the termination of the employment of the Claimant by the Defendant was in accordance with the terms and conditions attached to same which parties are bound by citing Mortgages PHB Limited v. VSTI Co. Plc (2016)6 NWLR (Pt. 1509) 465 at 468; that the DPR Guidelines is invalid not having formed part of the contract between the parties citing Shell Petroleum Development Co. v. Lawson Jack (1998)4 NWLR (Pt. 545) 249, Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Development Co. (1993)4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512 & Shell Petroleum Development Co. v. Nwawka (2001)10 NWLR (Pt. 720); that the termination of the employment of the Claimant did not contravene labour law or to any international best practices Claimant not having pointed to any and that the Claimant has failed to prove his entitlement to any of the monetary claims made against the Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. The final written address of the Claimant was dated and filed on 19/6/18. In it learned Counsel set down 2 main issues for determination as follows - 1. Is the fact that the Defendant (or even both Parties) was unaware of these Guidelines of any effect on the contract of employment? 2. Whether the Defendant's Final Address dated the 24th day of November 2017 is valid. Learned Counsel argued that when parties entered into an agreement, they ought to be mindful of the governing law, rules and regulations for that type of agreement; that a party cannot claim not to be bound by the said laws, rules and regulations after entering into such agreement or claim not to be aware of the existence of such laws, rules or regulations and that this principle which is expressed in the latin maxim ignorantia juris non excusat has found judicial approval in Nigeria citing Akpaji v. Udemba (20090LPELR-371 (SC) & Omowaiye v. A.G of Ekiti State & Anor. (2010) LPELR-4779 (CA). Counsel submitted further that assuming the DPR Guidelines were not incorporated in the contract, it remains a term of the contract being implied by statute and that an implied term does not depend on the actual intention of the parties but on a rule of law citing Luxor (Eastbourne) Limited v. Cooper (1867)16 LT 637 & Ogunnihyi v. Hon. Minister of the FCT & Ors. (2014) LPELR-23164(CA); that the Guidelines derived its force from statute and as such it has the force of law; that once it is shown that rules are made under the powers conferred by the Constitution or statute they are deemed to have the same force of law as the said Constitution or Statute citing Akanbi v. Alao (1989)5 SC 1and that the Court should hold that these Guidelines are applicable to the contract of employment in the instant case by virtue of being an implied term of the contract. Learned Counsel also submitted that the final address filed by the Defendant on 24/11/17 is invalid on the premise that the particular Counsel who signed same was not indicated out of the 6 Counsel listed citing Onwukwe v. Iwuchukwu (2017) LPELR-41584(CA). Counsel thus prayed the Court to discountenance the said final address. Counsel prayed the Court to find in favour of the Claimant. 5. Decision I have read and understood carefully all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side. I reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. I also heard the testimonies of all the witnesses as well as watched their demeanour. In addition, I heard the oral submissions of both Counsel during adoption of their final addresses. Having done all this, I narrow the issues for the just determination of this case to the following - 1. Whether the Defendant's final address dated 24th day of November 2017 is valid. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved all or any of his claims to be entitled to same. In paragraph 2 of his final written address, learned Counsel to the Claimant had argued that the final address filed on behalf of the Defendant was fundamentally defective, incompetent and liable to be struck out. The basis of this argument is that the final written address has six names of Counsel written on it; that there is no indication showing who signed the address out of the six names indicated and that the process is invalid and of no effect citing Onwukwe v. Iwuchukwu (2017)LPELR-41584 (CA) & PDP v. Ekeagbara (2016) LPELR-40849 (CA). The Defendant's final written address was dated and filed on 24/11/17. Six names were indicated on it as Counsel to the Defendant. The Counsel are from TEMPLARS as indicated. The first name on that process is Inam Wilson. Although there is no indication of which of the six Counsel signed the final address, however, I find a Legal Practitioner's seal in the name of Inam A. Wilson affixed to the process. Could it be rightly assumed that Inam Wilson Esq. whose name appeared as number 1 on the list of Counsel from Templars as Counsel to the Defendant was not the person who signed that process? It appears to me that that issue has been well settled in some recent decisions of the appellate Court. In Gamme Integrated Resources Services Limited v. FRN & Anor. (2017) LPELR the Court of Appeal was faced with a nearly similar situation. The Court per Husaini JCA stated that ''the question whether the person whose seal is affixed on a legal document or process as a legal practitioner should be the same person who signs to authenticate that document is now settled''. His lordship was to quote and follow the decision of the Supreme Court in Yaki V. Bagudu (2015) All FWLR (Pt. 810) 1026, where Ariwoola JSC at pages 1080-1081 stated thus - "I am of the opinion that ordinarily, any responsible member of the noble profession of lawyers will not sign or present any legal document which does not have his seal and stamp on it. This is to show authentication and responsibility. Therefore, where a document is filed without the seal and stamp of the lawyer who prepared same, such document will be deemed not to have been properly signed and filed and shall remain voidable until the necessary steps are taken to regularize same. Otherwise, if not regularized, the Court may not countenance an improperly filed document''. I resolve the first issue set down for determination in favour of the Defendant and against the Claimant. I find and hold that the Defendant's final address dated 24th day of November 2017 is valid. The second issue for determination is whether the Claimant has proved all or any of his claims to be entitled to same. The burden of proof is on the Claimant to discharge by adducing credible and cogent evidence in support of each of his head of claims. The facts of this case as shown by the evidence led are that the Claimant entered into a written contract of employment dated 15/1/15 (See Exh. SA6).That contract was for a six month period, ''renewable upon agreement by both parties''. Among other terms and conditions of the contract is that same is terminable by a one month notice or allowance in lieu of notice. Now by a letter dated 12/3/15 (Exh. SA2), the employment of the Claimant was terminated. The law is trite that parties are bound by the terms and conditions of a contract voluntarily entered into. See JFS Investment Ltd. v. Brawal Line Ltd. (2010) 18 NWLR (1225) 495, Baba v. Nigeria Civil Aviation Training Centre (1991) 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388; Koiki v. Magnusson (1999) 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492 at p. 494 and Hillary Farms Ltd. v. M.V Mahtra (2007) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1054) 210. See also SCOA (Nig.) Plc v. TAAN & Ors (2018) LPELR (CA). It is important to note and I do note that the Claimant is not contending in this case that the termination of his employment by the Defendant was wrongful or in contravention or breach of his contractual terms with the Defendant. The foundation of the suit of the Claimant is obvious from the declaratory relief sought. Claimant had sought - ''A Declaration that the purported termination of the Claimant by the Defendant was illegal and contrary to the Department of Petroleum Resources Guidelines and Procedures for the Release of Staff in the Nigerian Oil and Gas Industry, Labor Law and international best practices''. The Department of Petroleum Resources Guidelines and Procedures for the Release of Staff in the Nigerian Oil and gas Industry was tendered, admitted and marked as Exh. SA3. Learned Counsel to the Claimant had submitted that ignorance of the law is not an excuse and that parties in this case ought to be mindful of the governing laws, rules and regulations governing their contract. I need to stress the obvious that the parties in this case voluntarily entered into a written contract with applicable terms and conditions. Exh. SA6 is that contract. That contract did not include, incorporate or make any reference to Exh. SA3 i.e the Department of Petroleum Resources Guidelines and Procedures for the Release of Staff in the Oil and Gas Industry. I think it is now well settled and beyond contention that when a Court of law is approached to resolve a dispute arising out of a written contract, the Court will solely concern itself with the terms and conditions of the contract as agreed by the parties. It is not for the Court to import into the contract terms and conditions not so contained in it. It is also not for the Court to import any extraneous documents not within the contract or within the contemplation of the parties. This Court does not need to go beyond the content of Exh. SA6 in deciding this case. To go beyond that exhibit or to consider the content of Exh. SA3 will amount to this Court rewriting and amending Exh. SA6. See Bookshop House Limited v. Stanley Consultants Limited (1986) LPELR-791(SC). The case of the Claimant was founded on a weak foundation. That foundation is the applicability of Exh. SA3. That exhibit being extraneous to Exh. SA6 the contract of employment cannot under any guise be imported to confer any benefit on the Claimant. I refuse the declaration as sought for lack of proof. I am inclined to hold that this case would seem to be an afterthought. For, on page 4 of Exh. SA7 an e-mail sent by the Claimant to Abi Saab, Rita on 24/3/15, the Claimant had stated inter alia - ''I want to make it clear that I am not cont contending with the one month in lieu payment which is already in place. What I was concerned about and requested was for my boss Mr. Claude Aleman to look into and approve my severance payment or package in line with redundancy policies''. No doubt, this punctures the claim for the sum of =N=5,293,749.00 only being unpaid three months' salary and unclaimed leave allowance. I resolve this second issue for determination against the Claimant and in favour of the Defendant. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as contained in this Judgment, I dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety for lack of proof by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge