JUDGMENT. 1. The claimant took out a general form of complaint dated 22/2/18 and filed on the same day at the registry of this court, claiming from the defendant as follows:- a. N90,000.00 debt arising from two months arrears of stipends/salary between the months of May, 2016 and June, 2016. b. N45,000.00 representing the one month Stipends/Salary in lieu of Notice. c. N35,500.00 representing the current value of the TECNO S9 Hand-set lost in the course of Claimant’s work for the Defendant. d. N1,000,000.00 as exemplary/aggravated damages e. N500,000.00 as cost of the suit and 10% post judgement interest. 2. The claimant filed along with the general form of complaint, statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents to be relied on at the trial and photo copies of document to be tendered in evidence. 3. On 18/4/18, the claimant testified as CW1 in proof of her case. CW1 after adopting her witness statement on oath, tendered four document in evidence, three out of the four documents were admitted and marked as exhibits CW1A, CW1B, CW1C. The forth document was rejected and accordingly marked tendered and rejected. 4. The case of the claimant as can be gathered from the statement of facts, witness statement on oath and her oral testimony before the court is to the effect that; she was employed as a receptionist on 30/12/14 by the defendant for an agreed monthly stipends of N45,000.00 and one month notice before termination or payment in lieu as the terms and conditions of service. CW1 worked for the defendant till 6/7/16 when her appointment with the Defendant was terminated without notice and without paying the arrears of 2 months salaries of May and June 2016. It is the testimony of CW1, that her employment was on payment of monthly salary of the sum of N45,000.00. Upon termination of her employment, CW1, demanded for payment of her two months salaries, but she was asked to come back the next week. However, when she visited the office of the defendant she was denied entry into the premises by the security man on the instruction of the management of the defendant. CW1, also testified to the effect that she lost her Techno mobile telephone to unknown persons while on duty and she reported the incident to the Managing Director and the police. The Techno mobile telephone was purchased at the sum of N18,500.00 and its current market value is the sum of N35,000.00. Vide exhibit CW1, the claimant demanded for payment of her two months salaries owed her by the defendant, however, the defendant treated her demand with disdain and refused to reply her demands. THE SUBMISSION OF COUNSEL FOR THE CLAIMANT. 5. The counsel for the claimant submitted lone issue for determination to wit: “Whether or not based on the quality of evidence adduced and the state of law, the claimant has not discharged the burden of proof to enable this Honourable Court to grant all the reliefs sought in the Complaint” 6. Chief S. T. Yenghe, Esq; counsel for the claimant in arguing the lone issue for determination submitted that the claimant has successfully discharged the burden of proof based on the preponderance of evidence which clothed this Honourable Court with power to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant. 7. On relief 26(a) which is for the sum of N90,000.00 debt arising from two months arrears of stipends/salary between the months of May 2016 and June, 2016. Counsel submitted that the paragraphs 2,4,7,8 and 12 of the Statement of facts and paragraphs 6,8,11,12 and 16 of the witness statement on Oath of Claimant (PW1) clearly have proved this relief. Exhibit PW1 B also proved that a demand for the indebtedness of N90,000.00 was made and no reply was received from the Defendant. In support of this contention counsel refers this court to the case of Joe Isa V. Amakiri (1976) 11 SC 1, the Supreme Court per Obaseki JSC held; “ Silence in a Situation which calls for response raises an irrebuttable presumption of admission by conduct or representation”. Counsel also referred to the case of Gwani v. Ebulee (1990) 5NWLR (Pt.149) 201 at 217G-H, where the court of appeal, held thus; “silence in circumstances in which a reply is obviously expected raises an irrebuttable presumption of admission by conduct or representation. In the instant case, failure of the Appellant to reply to letters written by the respondent’s solicitor demanding payment constituted an admission of liability by the Appellant and lend credence to the respondent’s side of the case” 8. Counsel concluded his submission on this issue by contending that on the strength of the above authorities and the legal position of Exhibit PW1 B amid the unchallenged witness deposition, the claimant has proved this claim and urged the court to grant same. 9. On Relief 26(b) the sum of N45,000.00 representing the one month stipends/salary in lieu of Notice. In arguing this issue counsel contended that by paragraph 8 of the statement of facts and evidence in paragraph 12 of the witness statement on oaths respectively that her appointment was terminated contrary to the terms and conditions of services as pleaded in paragraph 8 of the Statement of facts. The evidence in the aforementioned paragraphs remains unchallenged and uncontroverted as Pw1 was not even cross-examined on the aspect of the said evidence, and that the claimant is therefore entitled to what she would have earned if her employment was determined in line with the terms and conditions of her employment which is one month salary in lieu of notice, on this contention counsel relied on the case of Ifeta v. S.P.D.C. of Nig. Ltd (2006) All FWLR (pt.314) 305 at 330 G. 10. On Relief 26 (c) the sum of N35,500.00 representing the current value of the Techno S9 hand-set lost in the course of claimant’s work for the Defendant. On this relief it was pleaded in paragraphs 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 of the statement of facts and proved in paragraphs 25, 26, 27,28 and 29 of the witness statement on Oaths of PW1, that the claimant’s Techno mobile phone was lost while on duty. The incident was reported to the defendant and the police. Counsel argued that the defendant never denied specifically the positive averments in above paragraphs either by pleadings or through cross-examination and that the law is trite that facts which are not denied are deemed admitted and admitted facts need no further proof. On this proposition of law counsel cited section 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011 and the cases of Jemile v. Awani (2001) FWLR (pt.62) 1937 at 1953 A-B, and Adeye V. Adesanya (2001) FWLR (pt.41) 1849 at 1856 E-F, and Igholo v State (2016) All FWLR (pt .858) 617 at 629 G. Counsel urged this court to grant relief 26(c) as claimed vide the statement of facts. 11. On Relief 26(d) in the sum of N1,000,000.00 as exemplary/aggravated damages. It is the contention of counsel that this relief can be awarded as same has been pleaded and proved without any challenge on the part of the defendant. In proof of this relief counsel referred to the unchallenged and undisputable paragraphs 1, 2, 7, 9, 10-20 of the statement of facts and paragraphs 3-8, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,21, 22,23, and 24 of the witness statement on oath of PW1 and further argued that the law is trite that even if there is no claim for aggravated damages specifically, but the circumstances of the case warrant the award of exemplary and aggravated damages. To support this contention counsel placed reliance on the case of A.I.B. LTD V. Asaolu (2005) All FWLR (pt.270) 2092 at 2192 A-B. It is also the submission of counsel that exemplary damages can also be awarded to punish the Defendant for his conduct which is unconstitutional and outrageous that has inflicted pains and injury on the plaintiff without any legal justification. To further support this contention counsel relied on the cases of CBN v. Okojie (2015) ALL FWLR (pt.807) 478 at 506 B-C, 506 D-E, A.S.E.S.E v Ekwenem (2001) FWLR (Pt.51) 2034 at 2054-2055 G-F. Counsel further argued that aggravated damages are designed also to compensate the claimant for his or her wounded feelings which is unquantifiable in monetary terms, hence could only be assessed based on the facts and circumstances of the case following the wisdom of the learned trial judge, they refer to M.M.A. Inc V. National Marine Authority (2013) All FWLR (Pt. 678) 790 at 815 G-H. 12. On Relief 26(e) for the sum of N500,000.00 as cost of the suit and 10% post Judgement interest. Counsel for the claimant contended that courts normally award costs arising from the expenses incurred by the parties in the prosecution of their cases. The submitted that In the instant case the Claimant has been coming to court with her counsel and ensured that hearing notices are served on the Defendant as ordered by this Honourable Court. They refer to Naude v. Simon (2014) All FWLR (pt.753) 1878 at 1906 F-H, Lonester Drilling Nig. Ltd v. New Genesis Executive Security Ltd (2011) LPELR – 4437CA; Counsel urged the court to be guided by the above judicial decisions and in the interest of justice grant the undisputed reliefs. 13. In concluding his submission counsel for the claimant cited several judicial decisions on onus of proof and submitted that with the uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence of the claimant, the burden of proof has been discharged and claimant is entitled to judgment. Counsel urged the court to accept the unchallenged evidence of the claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. COURT’S DECISION 14. I have carefully and painstakingly perused the content of the processes filed before the court and the submission of counsel for the claimant.. 15. I wish to observe that this suit was commenced on 22/2/18 and the originating process was served on the defendant on 12/3/18. The claimant testified on 18/4/18 and the matter was adjourned to 7/5/18 for cross-examination and defence by the defendant. On 7/5/18, when this mater came up for cross-examination and defence, the defendant was absent and was not represented by counsel. The counsel for the claimant then applied for foreclosure of the defendant from depending. The court ordered the clamant to file final written address and the case was adjourned to 5/7/18 for adoption of final written address. It is to be noted that the defendant did not enter appearance and defence until on 29/6/18, when the defendant filed notice of preliminary objection urging the court to strike out the complaint for want of competence and jurisdiction. The notice of preliminary objection was argued on 6/12/18. The ruling on the preliminary objection was delivered on 28/2/19 and thereafter the case was adjourned to the 30/4/19 for adoption of final written address. The counsel for the claimant adopted his final written address on 30/4/19 and judgment reserved till 11/7/19. 16. It is clear from the above facts that the defendant deliberately decided not to participate in the proceeding in this suit. This means that the court was only availed of the claimant’s side of the story. Now, what this court is to decide is whether the claimant has vide the evidence adduced before the court made out a case to entitled the claimant to judgment as per her claim before the court. 17. It is plain in the present case that there are ascertained and unascertained claims. This means that the claimant’s claims before the court are for liquidated and unliquidated claims. 18. Order 38 Rule 2(1) of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, provides:- ‘’2.—(1) Where a cause fixed for hearing is called and the Claimant appears in Court but the Defendant is absent in Court and has not filed any defence to the claim in accordance with these Rules, the Claimant shall be entitled to judgment as far as he can prove his case. (2) ………Where a cause is called for hearing and the claimant appears in Court but the defendant or respondent and/or counsel who has entered defence was not in Court and no good cause has been shown for the absence, the Claimant may prove the claim in so far as the burden of proof lies upon the defendant. (3) Where a Claimant was allowed by the Court to prove his claim in the absence of the Defendant or respondent and/or counsel, the Court shall adjourn the case to enable the Defendant appear in Court to prove the defence. (4) If on the date fixed for the Defendant to appear before the Court to prove the defence and the Defendant fails or neglects to appear, the Claimant may be allowed to file a Final Address and adjourn the case for adoption of the Final Address. Provided that the Defendant shall be put on notice on a date fixed for the adoption of the Final Address. 19. On the 18/4/18 when this matter came up for hearing, the defendant was not in court and was not represented by counsel. Consequently, when the claimant testified the matter was adjourned to 7/5/18 for the defendant to appear to cross-examine the clamant and to defend. On 7/5/18, when this matter was called before the court the defendant was not in court and was not represented by counsel. The counsel for the claimant then applied for the defendant to be foreclosed and the application for foreclosure was granted. The claimant was directed by the court to file final written address. Which was done, the claimant’s final written address was filed on 16/5/18. 20. It is clear from the foregoing, that the procedure laid down by order 38 Rule 2 & 4 of the rules of this court was complied with in the conduct of the trial of this suit. What remains is for the court to examine the evidence adduced and see whether the claimant is entitled to judgment as claimed. 21. The claimant in the case at hand has testified that she was employed by the defendant as a receptionist on salary of the sum of N45,000.00 (Forty Five Thousand Naira) only per month. According to the claimant the contract between the claimant and the defendant was entered orally and it is the condition of the contract that for termination one month notice shall be given or payment in lieu of notice. According to the claimant she was employed on 30/12/14 and worked for the defendant till 7/6/16, when her employment was terminated without notice or payment in lieu of notice. It is also the case of the claimant that as at the time of termination of her appointment, the defendant owed her two months salaries for the Months of May and June 2016. The claimant went on to testify that she lost her Techno Mobile Phone to unknown persons while on duty. She stated that she reported the incident to the defendant and the police. She also stated that the current market value of the Techno Mobile Phone is N35,000.00 (Thirty Five Thousand Naira) only. It is based on these facts that the claimant claims as per paragraph 26 of her statement of facts. 22. It is to be remembered that the defendant in this failed or neglected to file any defence to the claimant’s action. This shows that the defendant had no interest in countering or contradicting the claimants claim as contained in her pleadings. The law is well settled beyond any dispute that in an action where the defendant failed or neglected to file defence to an action, the claimant’s claims will be taken to have been admitted by the defendant, due to lack or failure to file or enter defence. This means that the defendant has left the evidence of the claimant uncontroverted and unchallenged and the court will be right to accept the evidence of the claimant as proved. The consequence of not filing defence within the time permitted by the rules or extension of time by order of the court the claim is as good as been established. Where no statement of defence is filed in answer to the statement of defence, then by the ordinary rules of pleadings, the allegations of default in service of the statement of defence is therefore that the allegation in the statement of defence stand unchallenged and so long as they disclose a cause of action, the claimant may be entitled to judgment, normally without the need to prove his case by calling evidence. However, the claimant may opt for trial. Even though the claimant is entitled to judgment or to apply by motion for judgment, a claimant may proceed to trial as it was done in this case. See Order 38 Rule 2 of the rules of this court. The claimant in this suit opted for trial this is understandable because the claims are for liquidated and unliquidated claims. The unliquidated claims need to be proved by evidence. See GRANT V KNARESBOROUGH URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL (1982) 1 CH 310. 23. The basic principle of law is that where a defendant failed to file a defence, he will be deemed to have admitted the claim or relief in the statement of claim, unless the facts in the pleadings are notoriously false in which case the pleading will not be taken as admission or proved. See OKOEBOR V POLICE COUNCIL & ORS. (2003) 12 NWLR (PT.834) 444, (2003) LPELR-2458(SC), (2003) 5 SC 11,UGO V OBIEKWE (1989) 1 NWLR (PT.99) 566, AWOYEGBE V OGBEIDE (1988) 1 NWLR (PT.73) 695, OGBODA V ADULUGBA (1971) 1 ALL NLR 68. EGESIMBA V ONUZURUIKE (2002) 15 NWLR (Pt.791) 466, (2002) 9-10 SC 1.(2002) LPELR-1048(SC), where the only pleading filed is the statement of claim absence of a statement of defence means that no issue is joined. 24. The claimant’s suit borders on contract of service or what is termed master and servant relationship. Under the common - and Nigerian - laws, the position is that, ordinarily, a master has the right to terminate his servant's employment for good or bad reasons or for no reason at all. All that is required is to adhere to the terms and conditions of the contract in determining the agreement. In this case the claimant unchallenged evidence is to the effect that the conditions of service is payment of Monthly salary of N45,000.00 and giving one month notice or salary in lieu in case of determination. The claimant has stated that the defendant terminated her appointment without notice and payment of one month salary in lieu of notice. The claimant has also stated that she was not paid two months salaries for the Months of May and June 2016 before termination of her appointment. There is no contrary evidence to contradict the evidence adduced by the claimant in this suit. As the defendant has failed or neglected to file defence to this action. This means the pleading and evidence of the claimant before the court are uncontroverted and unchallenged. The law is home book that absence of filing of defence amount to admission and the claimant may be entitled to judgment even without calling evidence. The claimant has vide the evidence adduced before the court discharged the initial onus of proof imposed on her by the law. See sections 131, 133 and 134 of the evidence Act. With the discharge of the initial burden of proof the burden has shifted to the defendant. However, having not file any defence the evidence of the claimant will be taken as sufficient for proof of her claim in so far as it is allowed by the law see NNAMAEKA OKOYE V OKEKE A NWANKWO (2014) LPELR-23172(SC). 25. I wish to state here that this case being one of contract of service the claimant is only entitled to claim as per the contract of service. What flows from this is, in cases of master and servant the measures of damages recoverable in situations like the one at hand, the claimant or servant is determined by what the employee would have earned over the period of notice required for the determination of the employment, Nom Ltd v. Daura (supra); N.P.M.B. v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111; Onalaja v. African Petroleum Ltd  7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 691; Chukwumah v. Shell Petroleum Dev. Co. Ltd. (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) 512; International Drilling Co. Ltd. v. Ajijala (1976) 2 SC 115; Akinfosile v. Mobil (1969) NCLR 253; WNDV v. Abimbola (1966) 1 All NLR 159; Mayne and McGregor on Damages (12th edition); paragraph 608. Simply put, the measure of damages in cases of termination of contract of service involving master and servant like in the case at hand is always the amount of money that is payable during the period of notice to be given by the employer as stipulated in the contract of employment. See Nigerian Produce Marketing Board v. Adewunmi (1972) 11 SC 111; Olatunbosun v. N.I.S.E.R Council (1988) 3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25. 26. The principles of law governing the award of damages were stated in Nigeria Produce Marketing Board v. A. I. Adewunmi (1972) 1 All NLR (Pt. 2) 433, 437, was stated thus: ‘In a claim for wrongful dismissal, the measure of damages is prima facie the amount that the plaintiff would have earned had the employment continued according to contract Beckham v. Drake (1849) 2 H. L Case 579 at pages 607-608. Where however the defendant, on giving the prescribed notice, has a right to terminate the contract before the end of the term, the damages awarded, apart from other entitlements, should be limited to the amount which would have been earned by the plaintiff over the period of notice, bearing in mind that it is the duty of the plaintiff to minimize the damage which he sustains by the wrongful dismissal. ‘’ 27. The application of this principle was vividly demonstrated in the case of Western Nigeria Development Corporation v. Jimoh Abimbola, (supra) where the court after stating the guiding principles, said: ‘‘The plaintiff was given a letter of appointment (Exhibit A)... The plaintiffs appointment was governed by the contract to which he entered at the time of his appointment. If he had been given one month's notice before termination of his appointment, he would have had no claim whatever on the Corporation. But he was not given notice, and he is entitled to one month's salary in lieu of notice. That is all he can get as damages.’’ 28. In view of the foregoing, the claimant in this suit is entitled to payment of her two months arrears of salaries for the months of May and June 2016 which is the sum of N90,000.00 and payment of one Months salary in lieu of notice of termination which is the sum of N45,000.00. 29. On the claim of N35,900.00 for Techno Mobile and the sum of N1000,000.00 exemplary and aggravated damages, they are not grantable in cases of termination of employment. 30. On the whole the order of the court is as follows:- I. The claim of N90,000.00 (Ninety Thousand Naira) being two months arrears of unpaid salaries for the Months of May and June succeed and is hereby granted. II. The clam of N45,000.00 (Forty Five Thousand Naira) being one month salary in lieu of notice of termination succeed and is hereby granted. III. The claim for N1,000,000.00 for exemplary and punitive damages is hereby refused as claimant is not entitled to such claim. IV. The sum of N200,000.00 Two Hundred Thousand Naira) costs is hereby granted in favour of the claimant against the defendant. V. All the terms of this judgment shall be complied with within 30 days from today. Failing which it shall attract 10% interest per annum. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge.