Download PDF
JUDGMENT This action commenced on the 8th day of June 2017. The Claimant’s claims against the Defendant are as follows: a. A Declaration that the purported termination letter dated 11th May 2017 issued to the Claimant by the Defendant without the required one month notice or payment of the Claimant’s basic salary in lieu of notice is illegal, unlawful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever and be treated as such. b. An Order of court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the sum of N30,000,000 as general damages for the embarrassment and physical/psychological trauma caused by the unlawful termination of the Claimant’s employment. c. The sum of N500,000 as cost of this suit. Upon the close of pleadings, trial commenced on the 27th day of November 2017. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Olatunji Fatokun testified for the Defendant as DW1. Hearing ended on 6th December 2018 and parties were ordered to file final written addresses. This was accordingly done, and parties adopted their respective addresses on the 12th day of February 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE In proving his claims, the Claimant testified as the only witness in his case. In his evidence, the Claimant stated that he was a former employee of the Defendant. He was employed on 17th January 2016 as a Sales Representative. His performance in his duties was outstanding such that his salary was increased from N97,000 to N150,000 in a letter dated 1st May 2006. By a letter dated 24th October 2006, he was also promoted to the position of Operations Manager, Nyanya branch. During the course of his duties, he opposed some policies made by the Defendant’s Head of Operations (Bakery), Mr. Wonder Mthewatha, so as to save the Defendant from incurring losses. As a result, Mr. Wonder Mthewatha was not conformable working with the Claimant and wanted the Claimant out of the company. Mr. Wonder Mthewatha ordered the Claimant to stop sending emails directly to the CEO but that such emails must pass through him. The Claimant got to the office on 11th May 2017, but he was denied access into his office and he was given a letter of termination of his employment dated 11th May 2017. One of the terms of his employment contained in his employment letter is that he was entitled to one month notice of termination of employment or payment of basic salary in lieu. He was not given one month notice nor paid the salary in lieu before his employment was terminated. The failure to give him one month notice or payment of salary in lieu is a breach of conditions of his employment. During his employment, he was not given any written or verbal query. His employment was terminated without any justifiable reason. He suffered physical and psychological trauma, disgrace, embarrassment, and untold hardship as a result of the wrongful termination of his employment. The Claimant tendered four documents in evidence Exhibits A, B, C and D respectively. DEFENDANT’S CASE In defence of the suit, the Defendant called one Fatokun Olatunji, Human Resources Manager of the Defendant, as its witness. The witness told the court that the Claimant’s performance at the Nyanya plant as the Operations Manager was woeful and following an audit report, the Claimant was instructed in an email dated 7th February 2017 to explain some missing loaves. In the Claimant’s response contained in an email of 27th February 2017, he recommended some names of some of his staff at the Nyanya branch whose salaries should be deducted. Because of the Claimant’s woeful performance, he was subjected to one-week training to improve his performance. The Claimant was also given a warning with instruction to improve his performance as Operations Manager as his negligence in the discharge of his duties has caused the Defendant losses over time. During his employment, the Claimant was also discovered to be receiving payment from customers using his personal account. A final query was issued to the Claimant vide email dated 17th March 2017. The Claimant’s appointment was terminated for reason of poor performance and huge losses incurred by the Defendant. After termination of the Claimant’s employment, he continued to collect money from customers indebted to the Defendant. Before the termination of the Claimant’s employment, one Mr. Boda, a customer of the Defendant, was indebted to the Defendant to the tune of N1,874,756.00. In a settlement meeting with customers, the said Mr. Boda admitted the debt and signed an undertaking to settle the debt in instalments. When Mr. Boda defaulted, the Claimant was instructed to report a case of breach of trust to the police. The Claimant failed to make the report. It was this discovery that made the Defendant’s Mr. Teslim Adelodun to report the matter to the police. In the course of investigation, Mr. Boda told the police he was not indebted to the Defendant, but it was the Claimant who tricked him to sign the undertaking. Mr. Boda also told the police that he has been making payments to the Claimant. Instead of assisting the police with investigation, the Claimant instituted suit FHC/ABJ/CS/42/17: Komolafe Denis vs. Commissioner of Police, Nasarawa state and 3 others at the Federal High Court Abuja. On 28th June 2017, the Claimant withdrew the suit and it was struck out. The Claimant is still wanted by the police in connection with the case. DEFENDANT’S FINAL ADDRESS The Defendant in their final written address formulated the following issues for determination to wit; a. Whether the Defendant followed the procedure in the termination of Claimant's contract of employment. b. Whether the several acts and/or omission of the Claimant does not amount to gross misconduct for which a dismissal will be proper. c. Whether in the light of the consistent contradiction in the Claimant's testimony the Claimant's evidence is capable of belief by this honourable court. d. Whether in the circumstances of this case the Claimant is entitled to the damages so claimed. On Issue 1, counsel submitted that where an employer has the power to discipline an employee but fails to follow the laid down procedure for such discipline, the step taken by the employer can only be declared wrongful but certainly not null and void and the Court will apply the appropriate quantum as damages. Counsel referred to the judgment of Hon. Justice J. D. Peters in Suit No: NICN/LA/350C/2012 - MRS. LAETICIA EBHOTEMEN vs. NIGERIA SOCIAL INSURANCE TRUST FUND MANAGEMENT BOARD. Counsel also submitted that the Claimant did not try to prove the breach of the terms and condition of employment by the Defendant and urged the court to hold that the employment of the Claimant was lawfully and validly terminated. Counsel placed reliance on the case of DUDUSOLA vs. N.G.Co. LTD (2013) NWLR (Pt. 1363). On Issue Two, it was the submission of learned counsel to the Defendant that that the various act of the Claimant amounts to misconduct/gross misconduct and therefore necessitating a dismissal against the Claimant. See MONIKHE vs. UNITY BANK PLC (2011) 12 NWLR (Pt. 1262) Pg. 624. On Issue Three, learned counsel for the Defendant pointed out the inconsistencies in the Defendant’s testimony and urged the court to hold the testimonies of the Claimant unbelievable and dismiss in entirety, the suit of the Claimant with punitive cost. On Issue Four, it was the submission of the Defendant’s counsel that the Claimant’s claims have no basis in law and cannot be granted under our labour law jurisprudence. In addition, counsel submitted that no such special circumstance is disclosed to place the relationship between the parties beyond the ordinary contractual/service contract relationship or master/servant relationship and therefore, the claim to declare the dismissal void and of no effect is unfounded and counsel urged the Court to so hold. Counsel placed reliance on the case of IFETA vs. SPDC (NIG) LIMITED (2006) 8 NWLR (983) @ 606h-607; OLANIYAN vs. UNILAG ((1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 and SHITTA BEY vs. FSPC (1981) 1 SC 40. Counsel further submitted that the Claimant's claim for general damages must fail because the matters for which general damages is being sought are remote to the extent that general damages are not cognisable in the award of damages for breach of contract, there is no legal basis of awarding same. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the suit against the Defendant. CLAIMANT’S FINAL ADDRESS The Claimant in their final written address formulated the following issues for determination to wit; a. Whether the Claimant has succeeded in proving a case of unlawful, unjustified and wrongful termination of employment by the Defendant. b. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the grant of any of the reliefs sought in this suit. On Issue One, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the Claimant has sufficiently proven a case of unlawful and wrongful disengagement from duty by the Defendant and that the Claimant was duly engaged by the Defendant as a Sales Representative. It was also submitted that the purported disengagement of the Claimant from duty by the Defendant without complying with the terms and conditions of his employment particularly column 3 of page 3 of Exhibit A is unjustified, illegal and unlawful. See OKUSAMI vs. ATTORNEY-GENERAL LAGOS STATE & 1 OR (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 227. In addition, counsel submitted that having failed to challenge the evidence put forward by the Claimant, judgment ought to be entered in favour of the Claimant and urged the Court to so hold. On Issue two, it was the submission of the Claimant counsel that the Claimant has established that the case before the Court is the unlawful termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant and urged the Court to so hold. Counsel further submitted that all the evidence and testimonies put forward by the Claimant before the Court having not been challenged/controverted by the Defendant, entitles the Claimant to be given judgment in his favour. Counsel placed reliance on the case of PASCUTTO vs. ADECENTRO NIGERIA LIMITED (1997) 54 LRCN 2657 and OKAFOR vs. OKAFOR (2015) 4 NWLR (Pt. 1449) 335 and urged the court to grant the claims sought by the Claimant. Reference will be made to further submissions of counsels in the course of this judgment if necessary. COURT’s DECISION I have considered the claims of the Claimant and the evidence he adduced in proof of same. I have also considered the defence of the Defendant. In my view, the issue to be determined in this judgment is whether the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs he claims in the suit. From the evidence adduced by the parties, it is not in dispute that the Claimant was an employee of Defendant until his employment was terminated on 11th May 2017. The first claim of the Claimant is for a declaration that the termination of his employment without giving him one month notice or payment of basic salary in lieu of notice is illegal, unlawful null and void. Going by the content of this relief, the complaint of the Claimant is that he was not given one month notice or paid any salary in lieu of notice at the time of termination of his employment. Let me say that the Claimant’s claim for a declaration that the termination of his employment is unlawful, null and void and of no effect has the implication of nullifying or voiding the termination. From the facts, it is not in doubt that the Claimant’s employment with the Defendant was an employment of master and servant. In such an employment, either the employer or the employee has the right to terminate the contract at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all. See IKHALE vs. F.A.A.N (2003) FWLR (Pt. 181) 1726 at 1743; TEXACO OVERSEAS PETROLEUM UNLIMITED vs. OKUNDAYE (2003) FWLR (Pt. 136) 961 at 972. However, where in terminating the employment there was an infraction of the terms of employment, it will amount to wrongful termination, but the termination cannot be declared unlawful or null and void. See ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408; BENIN ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY PLC. vs. NAPOLEON ESEALUKA (2015) 2 NWLR (Pt. 1440) 411 at 437; UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1389. Therefore, the Claimant’s claim for a declaration that the termination of his employment is unlawful, illegal, null and void is not an appropriate claim the Claimant can seek in this case. The termination of the Claimant’s employment cannot be declared null and void. I have examined the averments of the Claimant and I find that his case has to do with an alleged wrongful termination of his employment. The task in this judgment is to consider the Claimant’s allegation against the termination of his employment to see whether he has proved wrongful termination. In paragraphs 18 to 24 of the statement of facts, the Claimant pleaded that by a letter dated 11th May 2017, his employment was terminated by the Defendant. He was however not given one month notice nor was he paid one-month basic salary in lieu of notice in breach of the conditions of his employment contained in his letter of employment. He also said he was not given verbal or written query before his employment was terminated. The Claimant also gave evidence on these facts. In his contention that his employment was wrongly terminated, the Claimant relied on his employment letter and letter of termination of his employment. These are Exhibits A and D respectively. In paragraph 15 of the statement of defence, the Defendant merely denied the Claimant’s averments in paragraphs 18 to 22 of the statement of facts. The Defendant did not add any averments to show that it gave the Claimant one month notice of termination of employment or paid one-month salary in lieu of notice to the Claimant. Also, the evidence of DW1 did not include or contain anything to show that the Defendant gave one month notice or paid salary in lieu to the Claimant. The Claimant’s averment that he was not given one month notice or paid one-month basic salary before his employment was terminated put the burden on the Defendant to prove otherwise. In the absence of evidence from the Defendant to disprove the Claimant’s allegation, it is taken that the Defendant did not give one month notice or paid one-month basic salary to the Claimant before his employment was terminated. In Exhibit A, the Claimant’s employment letter, one of the terms of the employment contained therein is that employment can be terminated by either party. It is also provided that the party terminating the employment is to give one month notice or pay one-month basic salary in lieu to the other party. That is to say either the Defendant or the Claimant can terminate the employment at any time but must give one month’s notice of termination or pay salary in lieu. The termination letter, Exhibit D, is dated 11th May 2017. It contains that the Claimant’s services will not be required effective from 11th May 2017. The fact that the Claimant’s employment was terminated the same date the letter of termination was given established the Claimant’s allegation that he was not given one-month notice. The termination letter did not indicate that the Claimant was to be paid one month’s basic salary in lieu of notice. The Defendant could not also show that it paid one month’s salary to the Claimant in lieu of notice. I find that the Claimant was not given one month notice or paid one-month salary in lieu of notice Although it is trite that in master and servant relationship either party have the right to terminate the contract at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all, however, where in the employment contract a procedure is provided to be followed for termination of the employment, any termination of the contract without complying with the procedure will render the termination wrongful. The termination of the employment is wrongful when it is done contrary to the terms and condition of service. See EZE vs. SPRING BANK PLC (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1076; UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1389 at 1440-1441. It is clear that the Defendant did not give the Claimant one month notice and has not paid the Claimant his one-month salary in lieu of notice. Consequently, the Defendant’s failure to give one month notice or pay one month’s salary in lieu of notice to the Claimant as required in the conditions of the employment renders the termination wrongful. In relief (b), the Claimant claims the sum of N30,000,000 as general damages for wrongful termination of his employment. It is the law that where an employer terminates the employment of his servant in a manner not in consonance with the condition of service, the employer must pay damages for breach of contract. ARINZE vs. FIRST BANK (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 639) 78. The measure of damages usually awarded in contract of service cases is the salary for the period of notice which the employer would have given as notice to terminate the employment and any other entitlement outstanding to the credit of the employee. The general damages sought by the Claimant in this case appear to be in the nature of general damages for injury sought in ordinary civil claims and not one for damages for wrongful termination of employment. The point must therefore be made here that an employee cannot be awarded general damages in an action between him and his master for wrongful termination of the employment. See P.Z & CO. LTD vs. OGEDENGBE (1972) All NLR 206 at 210; PIONEER MILLING CO. LTD. vs. NANSING (2003) FWLR (Pt. 151) 1820 at 1827-1828. Therefore, the general damages sought by the Claimant cannot be granted. The damages the Claimant is entitled to in this case will be one month’s salary in lieu of notice. The Claimant said in his evidence that his monthly salary was increased to the sum of N150,000 in a letter dated 1st May 2016. The letter is Exhibit B. The Defendant admitted this fact in paragraph 6 of the amended statement of defence. The Claimant is entitled to be paid this sum which is one-month salary in lieu of notice. As for the claim for cost of action in the sum of N500,000 sought in relief [c], the Claimant did not establish this claim. The end result of all the foregoing is that I find no merit in all the reliefs sought by the Claimant in this case. They are hereby dismissed. However, I find that the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated for the reason that he was not given one month notice nor paid one-month salary in lieu of notice in breach of the conditions of his employment. The Claimant is entitled to be paid one month’s salary in the sum of N150,000. The defendant is hereby ordered to pay the sum of N150,000 to the Claimant. I make this order pursuant to the powers conferred on this court in Section 14 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. This sum shall be paid within 30 days from today, failing which it shall begin to accrue interest at 15% per annum until it is liquidated. Parties shall bear their costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge