Download PDF
JUDGMENT Introduction & Claims 1. This suit was initiated by the Claimant vide his Complaint, Statement of Facts and other accompanying processes on 2/7/14 and sought the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that my purported dismissal by the Defendant vide its letter dated 20th day of July 2009 is null and void and is of no effect whatsoever and consequently I am entitled to salaries and all necessary entitle from August 1, 2009 till date of Judgment. 2. A declaration that the Defendant should reinstate me to my duties forthwith in its employment. 2. ALTERNATIVELY, payment of the sun of =N=50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) to me being my outstanding salary, one month salary in lieu of notice, cost of this suit and compensation for damages suffered during the period as follows - 1. Outstanding Salary - =N=982,678.95 2. One month salary in lieu of notice - =N=850,000.00 3. Damages - =N=40,000,000.00 4. Cost of this suit - =N=8,617,321.05 =N=50,000,000:00 3. The Defendant denied the claims, filed its Statement of Defence and accompanying processes dated 17/11/14. The said defence was amended vide court order made on 21/9/15 filed on the 29/9/15. In reaction to this Amended Statement of Defence, the Claimant filed a reply to same dated 1/12/15. Case of the Claimant 4. On 14/11/16, the Claimant opened his case. Claimant adopted his witness deposition of 2/7/14 as his evidence in chief as CW1. 31 documents were tendered and admitted in evidence through CW1 both in evidence in chief and under cross examination. The admitted documents were marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C31 respectively. The case of the Claimant as revealed from his pleadings and evidence led is that he was offered an employment by the Defendant; that the employment was terminated by a letter dated 20/7/09; that his monthly salary inclusive of allowances before the termination of his employment was =N=850,000.00; that at the time of his disengagement, the Defendant owed him the sum of =N=5.2 Million as unsettled salaries and allowances; that 5 years after his employment was wrongfully terminated, the Defendant made an offer to pay him the sum of =N=4,420,328.00 in full and final settlement of all obligations owed by the Defendant; that he accepted the sum offered and instructed his Solicitors to write for the balance and that the Defendant has failed to pay the said balance. 5. Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he is presently a Consultant with Vodacom Nigeria Limited since February 2017; that his landlord reported issue of his tenancy to his employer; that his employer showed him the petition written by his landlord; that he exchanged correspondences with the Defendant respecting his alleged absence from duty without approval; that he would recognize the said correspondences; that the documents shown to him have no bearing to his case; that the issues raised in them happened during the course of his employment with the Defendant; that he received a draft in the sum of =N=4,420,328.00 from Defendant as his terminal benefit and that he was supposed to be paid more than the amount paid to him. Case of the Defendant 6. The Defendant opened its case on 17/10/17 and called one Mohammed Abdu Waya as its lone witness. The witness adopted his witness deposition dated 29/9/15 as his evidence in chief and tendered 6 documents as exhibit. One of the documents was subsequently withdrawn. The remaining 5 documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. D1-Exh.D5. The case put forward by the Defendant is that the Claimant voluntarily accepted a lesser amount in full and final settlement of his terminal benefit and that Claimant is not entitled to any further payment from it. Under cross examination, the witness stated that the Defendant could meet all its financial obligations as at today; that at the time the Defendant made payment to the Claimant it was not in a good financial position and that as at 24/2/11 Defendant had financial constraints as salaries were not being paid regularly. Submissions of learned Counsel 7. Learned Counsel to the Defendant filed his final written address on 12/12/17 and set down 2 issues as follows for determination - 1. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, this suit can be maintained by the Claimant against the Defendant in the light of Exh.C12. 2. Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case, the Claimant is entitled to reliefs claimed from this Honourable Court. 8. Arguing these issues learned Counsel submitted that in view of Exh. C12, the Claimant has waived or lost his right to maintain this suit; that the suit is an abuse of Court process citing Pavex International Co. Limited v. IBWA (1994)1 NWLR (Pt. 347) 685; that the Claimant has no capacity to institute the action citing Alh. Arowolo v. Akapo & Ors. (2004)All FWLR (Pt.208) 807 at 853 and that to concede to the prayers of the Claimant would amount to double compensation having agreed and consented to the earlier amount paid to him. Learned Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. 9. On 25/1/18, Counsel to the Claimant filed his final written address and equally set down 2 issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the Claimant(sic) has satisfied the condition for termination of the contract of employment of the Claimant. 2. Whether from the facts and circumstance before Court, the Claimant can in law be said to have waived his right to his outstanding entitlement in the light of Exh.C12. 10. Learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted that in an action of this nature, Claimant must plead and prove not only the appointment but also the terms and conditions of same citing Kabel Metal Nigeria Limited v. Ativie (2001)FWLR (Pt.66) 662 at 675; that the right to terminate an employment is either provided in the contract or read into the contract if omitted citing Ladipo v. Cheveron Nigeria Limited 92005)All FWLR (Pt. 260) 133 at 142 and that the Defendant failed to comply with the terms of the contract of employment respecting giving of a month notice or payment in lieu. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is entitled to be given proper notice or payment in lieu of such notice. Counsel further submitted that the agreement contained in Exh. C12 and that in negotiating to pay the Claimant the stated sum, the Defendant unduly influenced the Claimant in collecting sum which is below what he was legally entitled to. Learned Counsel thus urged the Court to disregard the content of Exh. C12 and hold that the Claimant is still entitled to his full payment. Decision 11. Having read all the processes filed by learned Counsel on either side, I have a good understanding of the issues involved and the argument canvassed. I also patiently reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial in addition to watching the demeanor of the witnesses called. Having done all this, I adopt a lone issue for the just determination of this case as follows - Whether from the facts and circumstances of this case vis a vis the evidence led the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought. 12. A case is generally decided on the basis of the facts and the state of the law. A Claimant seeking judicial intervention is ordinarily required to adduce sufficiently cogent and credible evidence in support of his case. Where necessary, each head of claims must be proved by evidence which may be oral or documentary or both. The desire of the Claimant in this case is for the Court to find in his favour and grant all the reliefs sought. The Claimant has the burden placed on him to adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of his case to be entitled to any of the reliefs sought. It is then for the Court to examine the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the state of the law and decide whether or not to make a finding in his favor. 13. The simple fact of this case is that the Claimant's employment was terminated on 20/7/09, according to the Claimant, without giving him the requisite one month notice or paid a month salary in lieu of notice. It was the case of the Claimant that at the time of his disengagement, the Defendant owed him the sum of =N=5.2 Million being unpaid salaries and allowances. Claimant also informed the Court and led evidence in support that the Defendant made an offer to him to accept the sum of =N=4,420,328.00 only ''in full and final settlement of all obligations owed by the Defendant''. That offer was made by Exh. C12. The Claimant accepted the offer and indicated his acceptance also on Exh. C12. He now sues for the balance of the alleged indebtedness of the Defendant. 14. The reliefs sought by the Claimants are in the alternative. The first is for ''a declaration that his purported dismissal by the Defendant vide its letter dated 20th day of July 2009 is null and void and is of no effect whatsoever and consequently I am entitled to salaries and all necessary entitle from August 1, 2009 till date of Judgment''. I have in evidence Exh. C9 dated 20/7/09 a letter terminating the appointment of the Claimant with immediate effect. Yet by Exh. C1, (Offer of Employment) ''Termination of this Appointment shall be by one month's notice from either party or one month's salary in lieu of notice''. The Court will not and cannot make declaration sought solely on the basis of Exh. C9. The whole gamut of the case must be considered holistically. Exh. C12 was tendered by the Claimant. That exhibit indicated the offer made by the Defendant and acceptance by the Claimant of the sum of =N=4,420,328.00 as full and final settlement of the financial obligation of the Defendant to him. In clear and unambiguous words, the Claimant had indicated his acceptance of the said sum in the following words on Exh. C12 - ''I Atitebi Banji Mashud without any duress or undue influence, do hereby accept the above payment in full and final settlement of all obligations owed me by Intercellular Nigeria Plc and release and discharge the Company from all claims, legal rights and causes of action which I, my personal representatives or anybody claiming through me may have now or in future as a result of the payment of this terminal benefit by the Company''. 15. Claimant is a literate and an enlightened individual. This is going by the position he occupied while working for the Defendant. Now, Claimant having taken benefits under Exh. C12 urged the Court to declare Exh. C9 as null and void and of no effect. I find no basis upon which this Court should grant that prayer. That exhibit is an agreement between the parties. It has never been the attitude of the Court to set aside a validly and voluntarily made agreement by parties as held in Asaka v. Raminkuka & Ors. (2014) LPELR-22920(CA), except in areas of fraud, deception, misrepresentation, illegality and public policy. See A.G, Rivers v. A.G, Akwa Ibom (2011)8 NWLR (Pt. 1248) 31. The duty of the Court when approached to construe a document made by parties is to give effect to their intention rather than rewrite same for them. A Creditor is entitled to compromise the debt owed him. A creditor may even completely forgive the debtor of the sum owed. Aboki, JCA in Omokey v. Antigha (2014) LPELR-24004(CA) citing Savannah Sugar Company Ltd v. Wabbey Farms Ltd (2013) LPELR-22129 (CA) reiterated the position of the law in the following words - ''Where party entitled to a certain amount of debt compromises and agrees to collect a lesser sum in full and final satisfaction of the entire debt and the other party acting on the strength of the new agreement pays or commences payment of the lesser sum, the first party will not be allowed to subsequently maintain an action for the sum of the original debt''. 16. Respecting the second leg of Relief 1, Claimant sought to be paid ''salaries and all necessary entitlement from August 1, 2009 till date of Judgment''. Claimant did not lead any evidence to the effect that upon the termination of his appointment effective from 20/7/09 that he rendered any service to the Defendant or that he remained in the employment of the Defendant. It is a trite law that the Court will not order payment of salaries for services not rendered. See Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988)3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25 at 55. Claimant has not proved his entitlement to this declaration. Accordingly I refuse same. 17. The second relief sought is for ''a declaration that the Defendant should reinstate me to my duties forthwith in its employment''. Reinstatement is usually not an available remedy especially in master/servant employment relationship. This is because the Court will not foist a willing employee on an unwilling employer. See Adewunmi v. Nigerian Eagle Flour Mills (2014) LPELR-22557(CA). In any event, having failed to secure a declaration of nullity respecting Exh. C9 letter of termination of appointment, a declaration for the Defendant to reinstate the Claimant must fail. There is free entry and free exit in employment relationship. In much the same vein, the right to hire and to fire is also inherent in the employer. I refuse to grant this relief as sought. I dismiss same accordingly. 18. In alternative, Claimant sought payment of the sun of =N=50,000,000.00 (Fifty Million Naira) to him being his outstanding salary, one month salary in lieu of notice, cost of this suit and compensation for damages he suffered during the period. He itemized the various heads constituting the bulk sum as follows - 1. Outstanding Salary -=N=982,678.95; 2. One month salary in lieu of notice - =N=850,000.00; 3. Damages- =N=40,000,000.00 ; 4. Cost of this suit - =N=8,617,321.05. An alternative claim is a separate claim and any award made consequent upon it is a separate award. In G.K.F Investment Limited v. NITEL Plc (2009)15 NWLR (Pt. 1184) 344, the Supreme Court per Ogbuagu, JSC, decided that an alternative award is an award that can be made instead of another. Alternative claims are only considered and granted where the grant of the substantive claim is either not feasible, unjust or inequitable. See Onayemi v. Idowu (2008) 9 NWLR (Pt.1092) 306 at 336 (CA). The principle relating to alternative claims dictates that the Claimant must rely on different or inconsistent set of facts to be able to succeed in his alternative claims. In other words, where a claimant relies on the same set of facts for his main or principal claims as well as for his alternative claims once the main claim fails there is nothing left to consider respecting the alternative claims. Recently, the Court of Appeal, citing Metal Construction (W.A) Limited v. Chief Moyo Aboderin (1989) LPELR-1868(SC) held in Oseni v. Union Bank & Anor. (2018) LPELR (CA) as follows - ''The position is that a Plaintiff will only be said to have set up claims in the alternative where he sets up two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claims relief on each of them in the alternative. However, where the alternative claims are alleged, the facts relating to such claims ought not to be mixed up so as to show on what facts each alternative head is claimed. Where therefore as in the instant case, the claims are said to be set out in the alternative but the facts are mixed up and not hinged on inconsistent sets of material fact, there cannot be said to be in existence, an alternative claim as claimed by the Appellant''. 19. The facts averred by the Claimant in support of his claim for declaration of nullity of Exh. C9 and declaration for reinstatement are the same facts averred by him respecting his alternative claims. The facts averred and the evidence led are not inconsistent. This Court has found and held that the Claimant is not entitled to the 2 declaratory reliefs sought. Since the facts are the same, this Court has no choice on the state of the law than to refuse and dismiss the alternative claims. I so do. 20. 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 as required by law. 21. I make no order as to cost. 22. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge