Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action was commenced by way of Complaint dated and filed on the 7th day of June 2016. In the Claimant’s amended statement of facts filed on 3rd April 2017, he sought the following reliefs: a. A Declaration that the contract of service between the Claimant and the Defendants subsists, and that the purported termination of the Claimant’s employment by a letter dated 1st December 2015 is wrongful and of no effect. b. An Order of mandamus directing the Defendants to reinstate the Claimant to his position as a medical officer with the attendant entitlements and promotions due to him or his mates in the service before the wrongful termination and payment of his arrears and emoluments or pay him his salaries, arrears, emoluments and any other entitlements due to him under the employment wrongfully terminated by the 1st Defendant computed per month till alternative reasonable job is secured. c. That the sum of N5,000,000.00 only as damages for the wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment with the Defendants be awarded to the Claimant against the Defendants jointly and severally. d. An Order directing the 1st Defendant to relinquish the house hold properties and monies and electronics of the Claimant to him and make good the damages to the properties and valuables in the house with immediate effect to the tune to be accessed by the court upon disclosure to the level of damages at the material time. e. An Order of N5,000,000.00 for the unlawful breaking in to the house of the Claimant without lawful justification. f. An Order of interest rate on the judgment sum until the judgment sum is fully liquidated and the cost of litigation. g. An Order binding on the Defendants, their agents, privies, servants, or whosoever acting on their directive from illegally terminating or dismissing the Claimant without due process of law. h. And such further other orders that the court may deem fit to make in the circumstance. The Defendants filed a joint statement of defence on 22nd June 2016 wherein they counter claimed against the Claimant. The reliefs sought in the counter claim are as follows: a. The total sum of N1,283,265.44 being the salaries of the 6 months paid to him without requisite qualification to earn such. b. An Order directing the Claimant to refund the amount he collected as salaries for the 6 months. c. A Declaration that the Claimant is not entitled to the arrears of the 2 months salaries of May and June 2015 yet to be paid to him having failed to produce the original certificate that qualifies him to practice as a medical doctor. d. An Order directing the Claimant to surrender all the property of the 1st Defendant in his possession forthwith. Hearing commenced denovo on the 18th day of April 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. The Defendants called two witnesses. Dr. Okonghae Ogbe testified as DW1, while Dr. Obadiah Akolo Namo testified as DW2. Hearing ended on 12th June 2018 and parties were ordered to file final written addresses. These were accordingly filed. Parties adopted their respective final addresses on 6th November 2018. CLAIMANT’S CASE In proof of his claims against the Defendants, the Claimant testified as the sole witness. His case is that he is a qualified medical practitioner employed by the Nasarawa State Civil Service as a medical doctor through the Nasarawa State Hospital Management Board in a letter dated 23rd March 2015. He resumed duty and was posted to the General Hospital Umaisha on 7th May 2015. He was given an apartment in the hospital where he lived. On 24th August 2015, the 1st Defendant carried out a database enlistment of newly employed medical officers. The Claimant participated, and he was duly captured in the 2nd Defendant’s data base. The newly employed officers were further shared into groups for purpose of screening and the Claimant’s group was to be screened in the 1st week of November 2015. On getting to Lafia for the screening, he was told he needed his MBBS certificate for the screening as he cannot be screened with his statement of result. He was instructed by the Chief Medical Officer to go to his school, the Abia State University, to obtain his MBBS certificate and was made to write an undertaking, after which he was given 3 weeks to report back to the 1st Defendant. The Claimant travelled to Abia State University to get his MBBS certificate, but he had some difficulty with the school in the issuance of the certificate. He went back to Lafia on 5/1/2016 to inform the Chief Medical Director of the position but he didn’t meet the CMD. The Deputy Director of Medical Services whom he met told him to return to his duty post until he is given another permission to travel to his University to get the MBBS certificate. The Claimant said he returned to his duty post but when later he sought for permission to travel to obtain the certificate, it was refused. He made efforts to get permission but to no avail. On 25th January 2016 he was given a letter of termination of his appointment dated 1st December 2015. He sought to know the source of the letter but all the officers he met denied knowledge of the letter. While he wrote to the Defendants for re-instatement, the 1st Defendant instructed Dr. Ogbe Okonghae to break into his accommodation and remove his valuables. The Defendant has refused to pay him salaries and has also prevented him from accessing his property and the sum of N450,000.00 which he left in his room. The Claimant also stated that the 1st Defendant treated him in a most unconscionable and degrading manner without justification or regard to the contract of his employment or the Civil Service Rules. He also said the termination of his employment took effect retrospectively as he was still working as at 25/1/2016 and it was done without regard to the terms and conditions of his appointment letter and the Civil Service Rules. He tendered several documents in evidence. They are Exhibits A, A1, A2, B, B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7, C, C1, C2, D, D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, E, E1, E2, E3, F, F1, G1 to G11, G12, G13, G14, G15, H1 and H2. DEFENCE AND COUNTER-CLAIM In defence of the Claimant’s claims and in proof of their counter claim, the Defendants called two witnesses. They are Dr. Ogbe Okonghae and Dr. Akolo Namo as DW1 and DW2 respectively. In the evidence of DW1, he said he is the medical superintendent in charge of General Hospital Umaisha, Nasarawa State. The Claimant was posted to the General Hospital Umaisha by the 1st Defendant and he assumed duty on 7/5/2015. DW1 said the Claimant worked under him. He stated further that the Claimant’s appointment was terminated on 1st December 2015 in accordance with the provisions in paragraph (a) of his employment letter. In October 2015, the Claimant left the hospital for the screening exercise in the 1st Defendant’s premises but he never came back until January 2016 after his appointment had been terminated by the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant has the right to terminate the Claimant’s appointment when his services are no longer required. The 2nd Defendant was not served pre-action notice and no cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. When the Claimant was posted to the General Hospital Umaisha, DW1 said he allocated a room for him to stay but when the Claimant went for his original certificate, he locked up the room and never came back for several weeks. When his appointment was terminated, the room was needed for the use of another staff. DW1 said he reported the issue to the police in Umaisha but when they got to the room with the police, it could not be accessed because the Claimant went away with the keys. It was also not possible to pack the Claimant’s properties in his absence. The police officer used another padlock to secure the room after taking inventory of the items in the room. He said nobody tampered with the Claimant’s property or know the whereabout of the sum of N450,000.00 he allegedly left in his room. DW1 tendered 3 documents in evidence. They are Exhibits J, K and L. DW2 said he is the Deputy Director of Medical Services of the 1st Defendant. It is his evidence that the Claimant was employed into the services of the 1st Defendant in March 2015 but he resumed work on 7/5/2015. The Claimant was posted to the General Hospital Umaisha to work. The terms of the Claimant’s appointment are contained in the letter of appointment dated 23/3/2015 and his employment was regulated strictly by the conditions of service in the employment letter. The Claimant’s employment was terminated on 1/12/2015 in accordance with the provisions of the employment letter. The Claimant has not been confirmed as a pensionable and permanent staff at the time of the termination of his appointment. The Claimant was appointed with his statement of result pending when he would produce the original certificate. The Claimant could not produce his original certificate since the time he was appointed despite the undertaking he wrote on 11/11/2015 to produce the certificate within 3 weeks. After writing the undertaking, the Claimant did not go to work for several weeks but showed up in January 2016 without the certificate and after his appointment had been terminated. DW2 further said that the 1st Defendant has the right to terminate the Claimant’s employment when his services were no longer required. DW2 also said that there is no cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and that the 2nd Defendant was not served pre-action before filing this suit. After the close of evidence, counsels for the parties filed their final written addresses. The addresses were adopted on 6th November 2018. DEFENDANTS ADDRESS The Defendants filed their final written address wherein learned counsel raised the following issues for determination: a. Whether the Claimant has proved his case based on the facts and documents presented before the Honourable Court to be entitled to the reliefs sought for. b. Whether the termination of the Claimant's appointment by the 1st Defendant for his inability/failure to produce the original certificate of MBBS from Abia State University where he alleged to have graduated from, is not in order. c. Whether the Claimant by his pleadings and evidence, has a case against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. On Issue One, it was the submission of learned counsel for the Defendants that the parading or tendering of Exhibits E1, E2, E3, F, and F2 by the Claimant without the certificate of MBBS cannot qualify him to be in the employment of the 1st Defendant as a Medical Doctor. See ARASE vs. ARASE (1981) 5 SC 33 at 37; ELEMO vs. OMOLADE (1968) NMLR 259; UGBO vs. ABURIME (1993) 2 NWLR (Pt. 273) 101. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue one (1) in favour of the defence to the effect that the Claimant has not proved his case to be entitled to the reliefs being sought by him. On Issue Two, counsel submitted that the Claimant must satisfy the court that he is entitled to his claim based on the evidence advanced before the Court. In doing so, he must rely on the strength of his case and not on the weakness of the defence which does not exist in this case. See EWO vs. ANI (2004) NWLR (Pt. 861) 611 at 630-631 paragraphs F-G. On Issue three, learned counsel submitted that based on the facts of the case, the Claimant has no claim/case against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. In addition, counsel emphasized that since the Claimant has failed to prove himself as a qualified Medical Doctor duly certified to practice as such, he should be made to pay back the amount he collected as salaries based on his alleged qualification. This is to serve as deterrent to others with such dubious attitude to dupe Government Institutions. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Defendants and dismiss the claims of the Claimant. CLAIMANT’S ADDRESS The Claimant filed their final written address wherein learned counsel raised the following issues for determination: 1. Whether the 1st Defendant's letter dated 1st December 2015 lawfully terminated the Claimant's offer of temporary appointment dated 23rd March 2015 based on the terms of the offer letter and the surrounding circumstances. 2. Whether Notice of Termination of Appointment drafted to take a retrospective effect and served on the employee by the employer after the period of the notice has elapsed amounts to a notice in law. 3. Whether the Defendants can without any form of Notice or Court Order served on the Claimant lawfully break into the living apartment of the Claimant and take possession of the apartment and detain all his belongings till date. 4. Whether by the totality of the evidence before this court, the Defendants have proved beyond reasonable doubt any form of fraud against the Claimant in defence of the Claimant's claim or to entitle the Defendants to judgment per the counter-claim? On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant will not be expected to continue to carry out the said undertaking when the 1st Defendant had by its wrongful action of issuing Exhibit A2, rescinded from the agreement before the agreed time in breach of same, and made it impossible for performance. See Paragraph 18 of the evidence of the Claimant as contained in the undertaking. Counsel contended that instead of the 1st Defendant producing the said undertaking, they alleged at paragraphs 11 and 12 of the evidence of DW2 that the undertaking was made on 11-11-2015 for a three-week period. Counsel urged the court to apply Section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011 to presume that the undertaking, if produced will be against them. See JOLUGBO vs. AINA (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 859) Pt. 901, para. A-G; IWUOHA vs. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLTD (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) Pg. 151 at paragraphs A –D. Counsel urged the court to find in favour of the Claimant. On Issue Two counsel submitted that the fact that DW1 admitted serving the purported termination notice (Exhibit A2) on the Claimant sometime in January 2016, and that the Claimant did not have prior knowledge of the alleged termination before that day but was going about his normal duties in hospital was not contradicted during the trial. See PHCN PLC vs. OFFOELO (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) Pg. 22 to 23 para G-A, Per Muhammad JSC. Counsel urged the court to hold that the purported termination is wrongful and of no effect and prayed the court to so hold. On Issue Three counsel submitted that the Claimant is a tenant notwithstanding the alleged termination of contract and entitled to the necessary notices and action for possession in court. Counsel submitted, relying on the case of SULE vs. NIGERIAN COTTON BOARD (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 5) 17, that the Claimant’s occupation of 1st Defendant’s apartment may at best be will, which may be determined by service of owner’s intention to apply to recover premises. Citing the dictum of Niki Tobi JSC in ODUTOLA & ANOR vs. PAPERSACK NIGERIA LIMITED (2006) NWLR (Pt. 1012) 470, counsel emphasized that termination of tenancy at will is subject to proper notice which is clearly absent in the instant case. Counsel submitted that the Defendants have failed to justify their action of breaking into the apartment of the Claimant and detaining his properties; and denied him the use of them till date. On Issue Four counsel submitted that the Defendants failed to prove or place before the court any fact or evidence incriminating the Claimant to warrant or insinuate fraud. See TORIOLA vs. EWENLA (2016) All FWLR (Pt. 819) Pg. 1048 para B. In addition, counsel submitted that the Claimant had all the requirements both at the time of his employment till date, and the 1st Defendants inspected them before employing the Claimant. See IWUOHA vs. MOBIL PRODUCING (NIG) UNLTD (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 664) Pg. 150. Counsel urged the court to hold that the counterclaim of the Defendant lacks merit and therefore urged that it be struck out with costs. COURT’S DECISION In paragraphs 27 and 28 of the statement of defence, the Defendants contended that no cause of action is disclosed against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the Claimant’s statement of facts, and that no pre-action notice was served on the 2nd Defendant before this suit was filed. In the evidence of DW2, he said that the Claimant has not disclosed any cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants because they were not the Claimant’s employers and they did not participate in the termination of the Claimant’s employment. He also said the 2nd Defendant was not served pre-action notice before this suit was filed. The Claimant only filed a defence to counter-claim without filing a reply to the statement of defence. As a result, the Defendants’ allegations in paragraphs 27 and 28 of the statement of defence were not denied. I have also examined the facts of the Claimant’s case to verify these allegations of the Defendants. In paragraph 1 and 8 of the amended statement of facts, the Claimant averred that he was employed by the Nasarawa State Civil Service through the 1st Defendant who offered him employment vide appointment letter dated 23rd March 2015. This letter is Exhibit A. It was issued by the 1st Defendant. By the content of Exhibit A, the Claimant’s employer is the 1st Defendant and not the 2nd Defendant. Again, the Claimant’s complaint in this case is about the termination of his employment and break-in to his house. In his averments, his employment was terminated by the 1st Defendant. On his instructions his house was also broken into. See paragraphs 26 to 36 of the amended statement of facts and Exhibit A2. In the entire narration of the Claimant of the events leading to the termination of his employment and break-in to his house, he did not make any allegation against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. No reasonable cause of action has been disclosed against the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. The 1st Defendant was the Claimant’s employer and it is responsible for the claims sought by the Claimant in this action. The 1st Defendant alone can defend the suit. Accordingly, the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are struck out from this action. Having examined the claims of the parties and the evidence adduced by them in support of their claims, I will proceed to consider the case of the parties to see if they have proved their claims to entitle them to the reliefs they sought. THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIMS: The parties are agreed in their evidence that the Claimant was employed by the Defendant as a medical officer vide the letter dated 23rd March 2015 and his employment was terminated in a letter dated 1st December 2015. These letters are Exhibits A and A2 respectively. In reliefs 1 and 2 sought by the Claimant, he claimed that the termination of his employment was wrongful and he sought an order re-instating him to the employment. It is the law that a Claimant who alleges wrongful termination of employment must plead and prove the following facts to succeed in his claim: i. That he or she is an employee of the Defendant, ii. Place before the court the terms conditions of the employment, iii. State who can appoint and who can remove him, iv. In what circumstances his or her employment can be determined, and v. In what manner the said terms of the employment were breached by the Defendant. See AYORINDE vs. OYO STATE GOVERNMENT (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 356) 709 at 722; OLORUNTOBA-OJU vs. ABDUL-RAHEEM (2009) All FWLR (Pt.497) 1 at 42; IMASUEN vs. UNIVERSITY OF BENIN (2011) All FWLR (Pt.572) 1791 at 1809. Therefore, in this action where the Claimant wants this court to declare the termination of his employment as wrongful, the Claimant must plead and prove the terms of his contract of employment and explain the manner the said terms of the contract were breached by the Defendant when his employment was terminated. In other words, the Claimant is expected to relate his employment to a condition of service and then show to this court the way and manner his employment may be terminated under the condition of service and how the conditions of the employment were not followed by the Defendant in the termination of his employment. In his pleading and evidence, the Claimant referred to the Civil Service Rules and averred that the termination of his employment was done in disregard of the Civil Service Rules. He also stated that his employment was a service in the Nasarawa State Civil Service. By these averments, the claimant has linked his employment to employment regulated by the Civil Service Rules. The CSR is recognized as a subsidiary legislation and it confers on the Civil Servant the status of employment protected by statute. See FUT, YOLA vs. MAIWUYA (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 677) 753 at 762. In employment regulated by statute or the CSR, the employee cannot be validly removed from the employment without strict adherence to the provisions or terms and conditions contained in the statute or Civil Service Rules for removal of the employee. Where a civil servant is removed from office without recourse to or in the manner not in line with the applicable rules, the termination will be null and void. See OKEME vs. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, EDO STATE (2001) FWLR (Pt. 36) 873 at 884. In this case where the Claimant’s employment was one under statute, for him to be entitled to his claims in this suit, the Claimant must plead and prove the terms and conditions in the Civil Service Rules and explain the manner the said terms and conditions of service in the CSR were breached by the Defendant when terminating his employment. I have earlier in this judgment given the summary of the evidence adduced by the claimant in proof of his claims. With respect to his claim for wrongful termination of his employment, the allegations he made against the Defendant are those he pleaded in paragraphs 35 and 36 of his amended statement of facts. The facts pleaded in these paragraphs are as follows: “35. The Claimant avers that the 1st Defendant has treated him in a most unconscionable and degrading manner without justification or regard to the contract of his employment or any Civil Service Rules. The Defendant has been rendered handicapped without job till date since he has been denied access to his hard earned resources in his house. 36. The Claimant avers that he knows that the purported termination letter of 1st December 2016 taking effect retrospectively while he was still working till 25th January 2016 is misconceived and without regard to the terms and conditions in his appointment letter or any Civil Service Rules.” The same facts were reproduced in paragraphs 35 and 36 of the deposition of the Claimant. This is the entire complaint the Claimant made against the termination of his employment. Although the Claimant pleaded his employment letter and the Civil Service Rules and stated that the termination of his employment was done in disregard of the terms and conditions of his employment contained in these documents, he failed to plead or prove the terms of his employment in the employment letter or the Civil Service Rules nor how the terms of these documents have been breached by the Defendant when terminating his employment. He also failed to tender the CSR in evidence. The Claimant made a lengthy narration of his relationship with the Defendant up till the time of termination of his employment and his interactions with the Defendant about his MBBS certificate, but he failed to show to this court how any of those facts constitute a breach of the terms of the condition of service or how the facts render the termination of his employment wrongful. In paragraph 36 of his statement of facts, the Claimant mentioned that the letter of termination was made retrospective hence it was misconceived. Perhaps, the Claimant feels that the letter of termination is retrospective because it was dated a date after the termination took effect. According to the Claimant’s counsel, in the final written address, the termination of the Claimant’s employment is wrongful on that ground. The letter terminating the Claimant’s employment is Exhibit A2 dated 1st December 2015. The content of the letter is as follows: “LETTER OF TERMINATION OF APPOINTMENT I am directed to inform you that your services with the Nasarawa State Hospital Management Board, Lafia are no longer needed with effect from 30th November 2015. 2. As contained in your appointment letter, the Board shall pay you one month (December 2015) salary in lieu of notice. 3. The Board wishes you good luck in your future endeavour, please. Signed Dr. G.U. Dangana Chief Medical Director. From the letter, the Claimant’s employment was terminated with effect from 30/11/2015 but it was communicated to him in the letter dated a day after, being 1/12/2015. The fact that the Claimant received the letter on 25/1/2016 does not mean that the termination of his employment was made retrospective. The termination took effect from the date the 1st Defendant decided to do away with his services. Therefore, there is nothing retrospective in the letter or in the termination of his employment. I cannot also see how the date of the letter or the date of service on the Claimant affected the termination of his employment or breached the terms of his employment. The Claimant can only bring his claim for wrongful termination of his employment within the terms of employment and not on the basis that the termination was made to take effect retrospectively. In the statement of defence and in the evidence of DW1 and DW2, it was maintained that the Defendant had the right to terminate the Claimant’s employment if his services were no longer required and that Claimant’s employment was terminated in accordance with the terms of his employment contained in the employment letter. Let me emphasise the fact that in employment cases, the burden of proving allegation of wrongful termination of employment rests on the Claimant. Neither the court nor the Defendant can help the Claimant to establish his case. Therefore, it is not the duty of the employer to prove that the contract of employment was not breached when the employment was terminated. In ZIIDEEH vs. RIVERS STATE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 354) 243 at 258, it was held as follows: “It has been firmly established that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus (a) to place before the court the terms of the contract of employment and (b) to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. The law is that it is not the duty of the employer as a defendant in an action brought by the employee to prove any of these facts” See also PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949 at 1967; KATTO vs. C.B.N (1999) 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 at 405; W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512. Again, the Claimant’s employment letter is Exhibit A. In paragraph (a) of the letter, one of the terms of the Claimant’s employment is that the Claimant or the Defendant may terminate the employment by a month’s salary in lieu of notice and that the Defendant may dismiss the Claimant or to terminate his appointment without compensation. By these terms of the contract, the Defendant is permitted to terminate the Claimant’s appointment at any time. The only duty imposed on the Defendant is to pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice. In utilising its right under the contract, the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s appointment through Exhibit A2. The termination letter discloses that the Defendant didn’t give any reason for terminating the Claimant’s employment. The Defendant terminated the employment for services no longer needed. The letter also indicated that the Claimant was to be paid one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The Claimant did not say he was not paid the said salary. As it is, the letter of termination shows that the Defendant terminated the Claimant’s appointment in accordance with the terms of the employment letter. A termination of employment in accordance with the terms of the employment cannot be wrongful. The Claimant has insinuated that his employment was terminated because of the delay in presenting his MBBS certificate to the Defendant. In his evidence, the Claimant said he was employed with his statement of result. During a screening exercise for new employees, he was told to produce his MBBS certificate for the screening as he cannot be screened with his statement of result. He was given a grace of 3 weeks, in an undertaking he wrote, within which to obtain the MBBS certificate from his school, the Abia State University. The Claimant said he could not obtain the certificate within the period and he returned to work. He was unable to get another permission to go back the school when his employment was terminated. DW2 said the Claimant was appointment with his statement of result pending when he would produce the original certificate. The Claimant could not produce his original certificate since the time he was appointed despite the undertaking he wrote to produce the certificate within 3 weeks. After writing the undertaking, the Claimant did not go to work for several weeks but he only showed up in January 2016 without the certificate by which time his appointment had been terminated. It is a fact that the Claimant was employed with his statement of result in March 2015. From the evidence, the Claimant was told to produce his MBBS certificate for screening taking place in November 2015 and he was given 3 weeks, to lapse on 7/12/2015, to do that. The Claimant said he was given his termination letter on 26th January 2016. The evidence reveals that the Claimant still did not have the MBBS certificate as at the date of termination of his employment. That is to say the Claimant did not have his MBBS certificate with him 10 months after he was employed with his statement of result. Let me also say that the Claimant did not plead or produce the MBBS certificate in this action. When the Claimant asserted that he is a qualified Medical Doctor and contends in this suit that he was wrongfully terminated for non-production of his MBBs certificate, I will think he should be anxious to show his MBBS certificate to this court in this action to prove that he really obtained the qualification. It is only then this court will believe that his inability to produce the certificate to the Defendant at the time was actually a delay from his school. But I am surprised that the Claimant did not produce the certificate in this suit. When the Claimant was cross examined by the Defendant’s counsel on 18th April 2018, he confirmed that he did not bring the certificate to court and that he did not produce it to the Defendant up till the date of his evidence. The Claimant’s evidence raises a doubt as to whether he has such a certificate to obtain from the Abia State University at all. Why will he not have obtained or produced the certificate more than 2 years after the termination of his employment? In my view, when the Defendant had a doubt about the Claimant’s qualification as a medical doctor because of his failure to present his original certificate on time, which was a condition for his employment. The Defendant was justified to terminate the appointment. As it is, I cannot find anything wrong with the termination of the Claimant’s appointment. This is in addition to the fact that the Claimant failed woefully to prove his claim for a declaration that the termination of his employment was wrongful. The Claimant’s counsel made very brilliant submissions in the Claimant’s final written address on how the termination of the Claimant’s employment was wrongful. The submissions of the learned Counsel for the Claimant were mostly on facts which were not pleaded or given in evidence by the Claimant. It is the law that the address of counsel cannot take the place of pleading or evidence. See IBIKUNLE vs. LAWANI (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 398) 359. Therefore, counsel’s attempt to window dress the Claimant’s case in the final written address cannot be of help to the Claimant’s case. The result of the failure of the Claimant to establish the requirements which will enable him succeed in his claim for wrongful termination of employment is that the Claimant’s claims in reliefs a, b, c and g lack merit and cannot be granted. The following claims were further sought by the Claimant in reliefs (d) and (e) of his amended statement of facts: (d) An Order directing the 1st Defendant to relinquish the house hold properties and monies and electronics of the Claimant to him and make good the damages to the properties and valuables in the house with immediate effect to the tune to be accessed by the court upon disclosure to the level of damages at the material time. (e) An Order of N5,000,000.00 for the unlawful breaking in to the house of the Claimant without lawful justification. In his evidence, the Claimant stated that upon his employment and posting to the General Hospital Umaisha, he was allocated an apartment in the hospital premises where he lived. After the letter to him terminating his employment, he wrote some letters to the Defendant to demand he be reinstated. Notwithstanding his letters, the Defendant instructed Dr. Ogbe Okonghae, the Medical superintendent of Umaisha General Hospital, to break into his accommodation and remove his valuables. The Claimant said he wrote to the defendant to register his displeasure on the breaking of his house and he also reported the matter to the police. The Claimant also stated that the defendant has prevented him from accessing his property, the sum of N450,000 he left in his room, his electronics and his documents despite reporting the matter to the police. He is unable to access his room up to date and all efforts he made to have the room opened were not fruitful. He was informed that only Dr. Ogbe Okonghae and a police officer, one Inspector Aragun, were involved. When the Claimant reported to the police, the said Inspector Aragun narrated the incidence of the breaking and opening of the house. In the evidence of Dr. Ogbe Okonghae, the person mentioned by the Claimant to be responsible for the break-in of his room, he said that when the Claimant was posted to the General Hospital Umaisha, he allocated a room to the Claimant to stay in the hospital premises but when the Claimant went for his original certificate, he locked up the room and never came back for several weeks. When his appointment was terminated, the room was needed to be used by another staff. DW1 said he reported the issue to the police in Umaisha but when they got to the room with the police, it could not be accessed because the Claimant went away with the keys. It was also not possible to pack the Claimant’s properties in his absence. The police officer used another padlock to secure the room after taking inventory of the items in the room. DW1 also said the Claimant’s properties were not tampered with and they do not know the where about of the sum of N450,000.00 the Claimant alleged he left in the room. From the evidence of DW1, he has admitted that the Claimant’s room where he lived in the General Hospital Umaisha was broken into. It is his evidence that the Claimant locked the room and he was not seen for several weeks. The fact that DW1 and the police later entered into the room to take inventory shows that they did break the Claimant’s lock to gain entry into the room. DW1 also admitted that the room was locked up by them with another padlock which is in the custody of the police after inventory of the properties of the Claimant in the room was taken. DW1 however denied tampering with the Claimant’s property or taking away any money from the Claimant’s room. It is clear from the evidence of DW1 that the Claimant has not had access to the room since the time it was locked up by DW1 and the police. The Claimant’s averment of the efforts he has made to have the room opened has not been controverted. That is to say the Claimant’s properties are still being held inside the room. The Defendant did not deny the fact that the properties inside the room belong to the Claimant. It is my view that the Claimant has a right to his properties. The room ought to be opened at once so that he can take possession of the properties he kept in the room. The Claimant has alleged that he kept some properties in the room including the sum of N450,000.00, electronics, iPad and documents. The Claimant has said he was unable to have access into his room since the time the room was locked up by DW1. He also said he was unable to see DW1 so that they can take stock of damaged items in the room. The Claimant cannot therefore know the condition of his properties locked up inside the room. Also, the Claimant has not said these properties have been stolen or they are no longer there. He has not also proven that the properties have been damaged. In that case, the Claimant has not given any basis for his claim in relief (d) that this court should assess the amount to be paid to him for the damages to his properties and the valuables he kept inside the house. This court cannot undertake such assessment in the absence of proof of the value of the properties and actual loss or damage to them. As for the Claimant’s claim to be paid the sum of N5,000,000 for the break-in to the house, I think the Defendant had a justification to do so and it did not do it unilaterally. It involved the police. It is observed that the Defendant had the lock to the Claimant’s room broken and the room locked up with another lock after the Claimant’s employment had been terminated by the Defendant. From the day the Claimant was relieved of his appointment, he has no reason to continue to occupy the room he was allocated by virtue of the employment. DW1 said after the termination of the Claimant’s appointment, he was not seen for several weeks and the room was needed to house another staff. Hence, the matter was reported to the police and in company of a police officer, the room was opened. The Claimant did not mention the date of the break-in to his house but by his pleading in paragraph 28 of his statement of fact, it happened after his letter dated 4th February 2016 but received by the Defendant on 4th March 2016. The letter is Exhibit B1. The Claimant said he received the termination letter on 25th January 2016. In view of pleading and Exhibit B1, the Claimant did not vacate the house up till 4th March 2016 when the Defendant received Exhibit B1. Between 25/1/2016 and 4/3/2016, the Claimant was not working for the Defendant but he locked up the room and was nowhere to be found. The Defendant cannot wait in perpetuity for the Claimant to come back to open the room or vacate the room. What the Defendant did was to report to the police who went along to open the room, took inventory and locked it up with another lock when they found properties inside with no place to keep them. The Claimant confirmed in his evidence that the police involved was Inspector Aragun who told him the incidence of the breaking and opening of the house. I think the Defendant was justified to have opened the room and it was done in the company of law enforcement agents. The Claimant too who locked up the room after his employment had been terminated is not absolved of blame from the incidence. In my view, the Claimant is not entitled to any damages from the Defendant. From the totality of the Claimant’s case, he succeeded only in his claim for access to his properties. He has not proved all other claims. THE DEFENDANTS COUNTER CLAIM: The 2nd issue to be considered in this judgment is to examine the Defendant’s counter claims. The 1st and 2nd reliefs sought by the Defendant against the Claimant is for the refund of the total sum of N1,283,265.44 which was paid to the Claimant as salaries for the 6 months he worked for the Defendant. In paragraph 33 (c) of the Defendant’s statement of defence/counter claim, it was averred that the Claimant fraudulently presented himself as having been qualified as a Medical Doctor and based on the misrepresentation, he was employed as a medical officer and paid salaries for 6 months from July to December 2015 amounting to the sum of N1,283,265.44. The Defendant pleaded the payment voucher which is the evidence of the payment of 6 months’ salary to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant. In the Claimant’s defence to the counter claim and in his evidence, the Claimant stated that the counter claim discloses no cause of action against him and having worked for the period, he was entitled to his salaries. None of the two witnesses called by the defendant mentioned anywhere in their evidence that salaries were paid to the Claimant at any time during the employment. The witnesses did not also mention the amount the Claimant was paid or give any evidence of the allegation that the Claimant fraudulently or falsely misrepresented himself as a qualified medical doctor. The facts pleaded in the counter claim about fraudulent representation by the Claimant and payments of salaries to the Claimant were not supported by evidence. Although the Defendant pleaded the payment voucher covering the 6 months salaries allegedly paid to the Claimant but none of the witnesses made reference to this payment voucher. What DW1 tendered in evidence as evidence of salaries paid to the claimant from July to December 2015 are the document dated 20th June 2016 and a payment record card signed on 17/6/2016 but effective date stated as 7/5/2015. These are Exhibits J and L respectively. These documents were made by the Defendant and they were made after the Claimant had instituted this action on 7th June 2016. Also, I have mentioned that DW1 and DW2 did not adduce evidence to establish the allegation of payment of salaries to the Claimant. It implies that no oral evidence was given to explain the content of the documents. The Defendant merely dumped the documents on the court. I cannot rely on these documents as evidence of payment of salaries from June to December 2015 to the Claimant. The effect is that the Defendant has not proved the payment of the alleged salaries or the sums claimed to the Claimant. In addition, the reason the Defendant seeks the refund of the salaries paid to the Claimant, as pleaded in the counter claim, is that the Claimant fraudulently represented himself as a qualified medical doctor and he was employed on that basis. From the pleadings of the Defendant, the allegation of fraudulent misrepresentation arose from the fact that the Claimant could not produce his original MBBS certificate. The fact that the Claimant did not or could not present his original MBBS certificate to the Defendant is not sufficient for the Defendant to rely on it to allege fraudulent misrepresentation. The Defendant still needs to adduce concrete evidence to establish the allegation that the Claimant did not qualify as a Medical Doctor. From the evidence adduced by the Defendant, the defendant has failed to prove that the Claimant is not a qualified medical doctor. The Defendant has not shown any evidence to the contrary that the Claimant did not graduate as a medical doctor from the Abia State University or that the statement of result presented by the Claimant was forged. When the Defendant decided to claim a refund of salaries from the Claimant, it may have forgotten that it was the one who employed the Claimant with his statement of result in the first place. Had the Defendant insisted on sighting the original MBBS certificate of the Claimant before offering him employment, the Claimant would not have been employed and the instant claim for refund of salaries paid to the Claimant would not have arisen. The Defendant employed the Claimant with his statement of result after which the Claimant worked for the Defendant and was paid salaries for his services. For these reasons, the Defendant is estopped from demanding refund of salaries paid to the Claimant. Accordingly, the Defendant has not proved reliefs a and b of the counter claim. In relief c of the counter claim, the Defendant sought a declaration that the Claimant is not entitled to the salaries of May and June 2015 yet to be paid to him. However, the Defendant did not plead any fact showing that the salaries of May and June 2015 were not paid to the Claimant nor was any evidence adduced on that point. In addition, this claim should have been made as a defence rather than as a claim. The Claimant did not claim for payment of arrears of salary for May and June 2015. I therefore do not see any basis for this claim in addition to the fact that it has not been proved. The last claim in the counter claim is for an order directing the Claimant to surrender all the property of the Defendant in his possession. I have perused the Defendant’s pleading and evidence but, save for the room allocated to the Claimant, I find no where it is pleaded or mentioned that the Claimant has any property of the Defendant in his possession. The Defendant has already taken possession of the room allocated to the Claimant by the Defendant when it was locked up to prevent the Claimant’s access into it. This claim too has not been proved. Having considered the counter claim of the Defendant, I find that all the claims have not been proved. The counter claim has no merit. In the total result of this case, save for the finding that the Claimant is entitled to have the room opened so that he can remove his properties, all other reliefs sought by the Claimant fail and are hereby dismissed. The Defendant’s counter claim also fails and they are dismissed. The Defendant is ordered to forthwith open the room which the Claimant lived in the premises of General Hospital Umaisha and allow him access to the room to evacuate his properties inside the room. The date of the opening should be agreed by the parties and it should be done with police presence. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O.Y. Anuwe Judge