Download PDF
JUDGMENT In a Complaint filed on 26th August 2015, the Claimant claimed the following reliefs against the Defendants: 1. A Declaration that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendants is vindictive and therefore unjust, unwarranted, unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. 2. A Declaration that the deduction of the sum of N30,000 from the Claimant’s March 2014 salary was vindictive, unwarranted, unjust, improper and unlawful. 3. An Order directing the Defendants to pay- a. The Claimant his monthly net basic salary and allowances in the sum of N53,785.56 from June 2014 to August 2015 amounting to the sum of N769,283.04 and for each subsequent month thereafter until the judgment sum is discharged for the unlawful termination of his appointment. b. To refund the sum of N30,000 being the sum of money unlawfully, illegally, unjustly and vindictively deducted from his March 2014 salary. c. The sum of N10,000,000 as general damages for emotional and mental stress and economic distress anguish occasioned by the Defendants on the Claimant which in turn affected the general welfare of his family. d. The sum of N1,000,000.00 only, being cost of this suit. Trial commenced denovo on the 25th day of June 2018. The Claimant testified for himself as CW1. One Anthony Makwe, a Legal Officer with the 1st Defendant testified as DW1. One Olutayo Babajide Salako, an assistant manager with the 3rd Defendant testified as DW2. Upon the close of trial on the 28th day of March 2019, parties were ordered to file final addresses. These were filed and regularised. The addresses were adopted on the 11th day of October 2019. CLAIMANT’S CASE In his evidence, which is verbatim of the facts pleaded in the statement of facts, the Claimant who testified for himself, told the court that he was an employee of the Defendants. He was offered appointment by the 2nd Defendant in a letter dated 28/3/2001. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are affiliates of the 1st Defendant, providing security and related services for the 1st Defendant. Through the 1st Defendant, the 3rd Defendant later absorbed the Claimant and all other security personnel of the 2nd Defendant. The identity card was also changed from the name of the 2nd Defendant to that of the 3rd Defendant but the identity card bore the logo of the 1st Defendant. When the 3rd Defendant took over security staff of the 2nd Defendant, the Claimant was posted to Maiduguri III, being the permanent site of the 3rd Defendant, as the Chief Security Officer. Preceding the confirmation of his employment on 4/4/2012, he was verbally informed by Alhaji Baba Shettima, Head of Operations, that a memo from the 1st Defendant had directed that all old property at old Maiduguri I branch of the 1st Defendant are to be moved to the new Maiduguri III site but no security personnel was to be involved in the task. He complied with the directive and no security personnel was involved in the removal, movement and fixing of the properties. He learnt subsequently that Ladan, Bashar and Adamu, who are staff of the 1st Defendant as cleaners, were spotted at Maiduguri Monday market selling off one giant generator plant block engine, air conditioner compressor, executive office table, chairs and ATM inverter battery on the instruction of Hassan Magaji, secretary of the bank. He confirmed from the cleaners and then reported to Alhaji Baba Shetima who instead, rebuked him for interfering in matters that did not concern him. Sometime in September 2012, he saw one Hamisu Magami, Head of Operations, removing 2 ATM inverter batteries from the premises of the 1st Defendant and he reported to Alhaji Baba Shettima who also told him to mind his business. As a result, he watched as Hamisu Magami removed and sold 12 batteries. On 10/4/2014 and 16/4/2014, he issued queries to 2 of his subordinates for absence from duty. These staff refused to respond to the queries and the Claimant was issued queries on 17/4/2014 and 22/4/2014. He replied the query of 16/4/2014 the following day but on the same day he received query of 22/4/2014, he also received a suspension letter from the 3rd Defendant alleging failure to properly coordinate his security unit. He proceeded on suspension from 23/4/2014 and resumed duty on 7/5/2014 as stated in the suspension letter. The loss of 2 weeks’ salary also falls within this period of suspension but not before the suspension. The Defendant however deducted N30,000 from his salary for April 2014. He reported to duty on 7/5/2014 but the 3rd Defendant issued him a termination letter dated same day without any reason stated for the termination. He spent 13 years and 1 month in the service of the Defendants and in this period, he was not accused of any misconduct. He wrote 2 petitions to the 1st Defendant when he was on suspension and after termination of his employment but nothing has been done on them till the time he filed this suit. The termination of his employment was vindictive, unreasonable, illegal, null and void. He was never informed of any wrongdoing or given any opportunity to defend himself. The Claimant tendered several documents in evidence. They are Exhibits A to L. The Claimant filed a reply to the Defendant’s amended statement of defence but he did not accompany it with a witness statement. He did not adduce evidence in support of the averments in the reply. I will deem the Claimant’s amended reply to the Defendants’ amended statement of defence as having been abandoned. DEFENDANT’S CASE In defence of the suit, the Defendants called two witnesses. They are Anthony Makwe, a Legal officer in the 1st Defendant as DW1 and Olutayo Babajide Salako, an Assistant Manager with the 3rd Defendant as DW2. Their evidence, which is similar, is in line with facts pleaded in the amended statement of defence. From the evidence of the witnesses, the case of the Defendants is that the Claimant was never an employee of the 1st Defendant. He was employed by the 2nd Defendant until 4th July 2005 when his employment was transferred to the 3rd Defendant. The Defendants are independent corporate entities distinct from one another. The 3rd Defendant absorbed staff of the 2nd Defendant and issued the employees identity cards showing they are staff of the 3rd Defendant. The identity card bore the logo of the 1st Defendant only to indicate that the place of assignment of the Claimant is with the 1st Defendant. The Claimant was queried on a number of occasions by the 3rd Defendant and he was suspended for 2 weeks without pay on 23/4/2014 for gross dereliction of duty after failing to respond to a query. The sums of N18,537.20 and N11,000 were deducted from the Claimant’s salary by the 3rd Defendant being two weeks pay and housing loan repayment. The 3rd defendant terminated the claimant’s employment on 7th May 2014. The termination came as a result of the 3rd Defendant’s decision to scale down its operation in the North East. The suspension of the Claimant and termination of his employment was regular and within the rights of the Defendants. The Claimant accepted his termination and his terminal benefits were paid to him. He has also taken steps to access his pension benefits. The Defendants did not cause any loss to the Claimant. DEFENDANTS FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS The 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants in their final written address distilled a sole issue for determination to wit: Whether the Claimant has discharged the legal and evidential burden to prove his case to entitle him the reliefs sought. On the sole issue for determination, learned counsel for the 1st 2nd and 3rd Defendants submitted that the Claimant has failed to prove that there was a contract of employment between him and the 1st Defendant and urged the court to dismiss the case against the 1st Defendant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not furnish any piece of evidence to support his claim that the prescribed method of termination of his appointment was breached. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed to show that his termination was done malafide. According to counsel, the termination of the Claimant was justified; arguing further, that the Claimants employment falls within the category of a master and servant relationship. See FAKUADE vs. OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY TEACHING HOSPITAL (1993) 6 SCNJ 35. On the Claimant’s demand for “General damages" as an alternative Relief, counsel submitted that the court this court cannot grant that Relief as it is strange in a claim for breach of contract to demand for such. See PATERSON ZOCHONIS & CO LTD vs. CASAU MALLAM MOMO & ANO (1962) 1 All NLR 2004; CHEVRON (NIG) LTD vs. TITAN ENERGY LTD (2014) All FWLR Pt. 758. 889. Learned counsel for the 1st to 3rd Defendants submitted that from the nature of pleadings and evidence lead in support of same, the Claimant is not entitled to judgment in this case. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the suit and grant cost in favour of the Defendants. CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS In the Claimant’s final written address, learned counsel for the Claimant adopted the same issue for determination formulated by the 1st to 3rd Defendant’s counsel. In arguing the sole issue, learned counsel for the Claimant submitted that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of Section 7 of the Labour Act, Chapter 198 LFN 1990, as the only document given to the Claimant is Exhibit A, which does not contain terms and conditions of employment. Counsel invoked the terms implied by the law to prove that the termination of the Claimant's employment was unlawful, null and void On proof of unlawful termination of the Claimant's employment, counsel relied on Section 11 of the Labour Act and submitted that no notice of termination was given to the Claimant even though he was entitled to a written notice of termination. It was the contention of learned counsel that the amount that the Claimant received every month is not his "basic salary" but his "net pay”, and that the amounts that are not included in the calculation of payment in lieu of notice, are overtime and other allowances like leave allowances, unutilized leave days allowances etc., which are not part of the amount the Claimant received in money every month. Counsel submitted that the Defendants did not adduce any evidence to support their reason for dismissing the Claimant and placed reliance on the position of the law that where an employer fails to give reason for terminating his employee's employment, the termination will be held to be unlawful. See INSTITUTE OF HEALTH, AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY MANAGEMENT BOARD vs. MRS. JUMMAI R. I. ANYIP (2011) 1 NWLR (Pt. 1260); SAVANNAH BANK NIG, PLC vs. FAKOKUM (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt.749) 544 Ratio 5. Counsel submitted that the deduction of the sum of N30,000.00 and N29,537.20 from the Claimant's salary is unlawful, illegal, unjust and vindictive and that no evidence was adduced by the Defendants to prove that these deductions from the Claimant’s salary was in line with the 3rd Defendant's policy. Counsel further urged the court to find that the Claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the reliefs sought and grant the Claimant's reliefs in the interest of justice. DEFENDANTS REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW In their reply on points of law, learned counsel for the Defendant emphasized that the Claimant had failed to discharge the burden by tendering evidence to show that he was employed by the Defendants. Counsel formulated the following issues for determination to wit; 1. Whether the Defendants are joint employers of the Claimants and hence jointly and severally liable. 2. Whether the Claimant pleaded and indeed led evidence to show a declaration of redundancy by the Claimant. 3. Whether an employer can terminate an employee without reason. On Issue One, the Defendant counsel argued that the Claimant was employed by the 2nd Defendant and his employment subsequently transferred to the 3rd Defendant and his employment letter stated that the Claimant was not an employee of the 1st Defendant. Counsel placed reliance on Exhibit A. On Issue Two, the Defendant counsel placed reliance on SAMECHASE NIG LTD vs GIDADO (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 760) 1302 amongst other cases and Section 20 of the Labour Act LFRN (2004) and submitted that while there is a difference between termination, the issue of redundancy was not properly pleaded. Further detailed arguments proffered by learned counsel for the Claimant as well as authorities cited have been thoroughly reviewed and evaluated. I see no need to re-hash them here. However, necessary reference will be made to them if required, in this judgment. COURT’S DECISION The issues formulated for determination in this suit by counsels for the parties in the respective final written addresses are the same, although expressed in different words. The issues are apt for determination in this case. The Claimant has sought the reliefs in his suit against the Defendants jointly and severally. His case is that he was employed by the Defendants through the 2nd Defendant. He said the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are affiliates of the 1st Defendant providing security and related services for the 1st Defendant. The Claimant stated further that the 3rd Defendant later absorbed him and all other security personnel of the 2nd Defendant. The Defendants denied the involvement of the 1st Defendant in the employment of the Claimant. The witnesses for the Defendants said the Claimant was at no time an employee of the 1st Defendant. He was employed by the 2nd Defendant until 4th July 2005 when his employment was transferred to the 3rd Defendant. The Defendants’ witnesses also said the Defendants are independent corporate entities distinct from one another. Before I consider whether the Claimant has proved his case or determine the liability of the Defendants for the claims of the Claimant, there is need to resolve the issue as to which of the Defendants was the Claimant’s employer. There is no dispute on the fact that the Claimant was first employed by the 2nd Defendant through letter dated 28th March 2001. This is Exhibit A. It is also clear that the Claimant’s employment was later transferred by the 2nd Defendant to the 3rd Defendant. Exhibit M tendered by DW2 is a memo by the 2nd Defendant to all its staff dated 4th July 2005. The staff were informed that the employment of all utility staff of the 2nd Defendant have been transferred to the 3rd Defendant with effect from 1st July 2005. Following this transfer of employment, the Claimant worked in the 3rd Defendant’s employment until 7th May 2014 when his employment was terminated by the 3rd Defendant. The evidence and exhibits tendered by the Claimant also show that the complaints of the Claimant in this action happened after the transfer of his employment to the 3rd Defendant. The Claimant’s queries, suspension and payment of his salaries and termination of his employment were done by the 3rd Defendant. Under cross examination, the Claimant said he was not given any employment letter by the 1st Defendant neither was it the 1st Defendant who terminated his employment. This evidence shows that there was no employment contract between the 1st Defendant and the Claimant. But from the evidence of the Claimant, the reason he joined the 1st Defendant and claims against it is that “the 2nd and 3rd defendants are affiliates, servants, agents and subcontractors carrying on the business of providing security and related services for the 1st defendant”. In other words, the Claimant alleged that the 1st Defendant is liable for his claims because it is the parent company and related to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. From the evidence adduced before this court, the 1st Defendant did not employ the Claimant. The 1st Defendant was also not responsible for the payment of the Claimant’s salaries and did not terminate the Claimant’s employment. The 1st Defendant, besides the fact that the Claimant worked in its office as security staff, did not play any role in the employment of the Claimant. The terms of the Claimant’s employment contained in his employment letter issued to him by the 2nd Defendant is clear as to his relationship with the 1st Defendants. It was specifically agreed in the employment that the 2nd Defendant is at liberty to second the Claimant’s services to any of the customers or sister companies of the 2nd Defendant. According to DW1 and DW2, the 2nd Defendant exercised this right in the contract to second the Claimant to work with the 1st Defendant. In seconding the Claimant to work with the 1st Defendant, the Claimant was told in the first paragraph, 2nd page of the employment letter as follows: “Please note that you are employed by this company to execute its contract with zenith international bank limited and that this employment does not make you a staff of the bank. Consequently, your conditions of service are not identical with those of the staff of the bank and in line with existing policy, you will not be entitled to profit bonus usually paid by the bank to its own staff.” By this term of the employment, the Claimant was aware from the beginning of his employment that he was not an employee of the 1st Defendant. The Claimant decided to join the 1st Defendant in this case and claim against it simply because the 2nd and 3rd Defendants are affiliates of the 1st Defendant. Although the Claimant did not establish that relationship in this case, there is evidence from the Defendants before this court disclosing that the 3 Defendants are independent corporate entities distinct from one another. Even if I am to assume that the Defendants are affiliate companies as alleged by the Claimant, each of them are corporate legal entities on their own. They can enter into individual contracts without recourse, liability or implication to the others. In that vein, employment contract is personal to those who entered into it and the terms thereof can only be enforced against the parties thereto. A non-party to the contract of employment cannot be liable under the contract simply because it is related to one of the parties to the contract. In this instance, in the absence of any act or conduct done by the 1st Defendant making it incur liability in the employment contract between the Claimant and the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, it cannot be responsible in any way for any liability arising from the termination of the contract simply because it is the parent company of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants. I find that the 1st defendant was not the employee of the Claimant and was not involved in the termination of the Claimant’s employment. The claims against the 1st Defendant are misconceived. It ought not to have been joined in this suit. By Exhibit A, the Claimant was employed by the 2nd Defendant. However, when the Claimant’s employment was transferred to the 3rd Defendant vide Exhibit M, no new employment letter or new terms of employment was given to the Claimant. None of the parties mentioned any such employment letter and none was shown to this court. The 2nd Defendant did not terminate the Claimant’s employment. It simply transferred his employment to the 3rd Defendant. The implication is that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants were the Claimant’s employers. The 2nd and 3rd Defendants are private limited liability companies. It is now very settled in law that employments under such companies do not enjoy statutory flavour. What this means is that employment with the 2nd or 3rd Defendants is a simple employment of master and servant. See OBAJE vs. N.A.M.A (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 732) 1811 at 1826; N.I.I.A vs. ANYAFALU (2006) All FWLR (Pt. 325) 141 at 162. When the Claimant sought the declaration in relief 1 that the termination of his employment is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect, he may have believed that his employment was one governed by statute. The effect of the grant of this nature of relief is to set aside the termination and reinstate the Claimant to the employment. This type of relief is applicable only to employment with statutory backing. In this case, where the relationship is that of master and servant, an infraction of the terms of the employment in the termination of the employment amounts to wrongful termination which do not affect or reverse the termination. See ESIEVWORE vs. NEPA (2002) FWLR (Pt. 124) 398 at 408; UZONDU vs. U.B.N PLC (2008) All FWLR (Pt. 443) 1389; N.I.I.A vs. ANYAFALU (supra). Therefore, the Claimant’s reliefs 1 where he sought this court to declare that the termination of his employment is unlawful, illegal, unconstitutional, null and void and of no effect lacks merit. The Claimant did not tender the termination letter in evidence. The Claimant said when he resumed from suspension on 7th May 2014, he was given the termination letter. Going by the case of the Claimant and the fact that he was resuming from suspension when his employment was terminated, he appears to link the termination to disciplinary action. I have seen the defence of the Defendants where they stated that the termination was as a result of scaling down of the 3rd Defendant’s workforce and not on disciplinary grounds. The Defendants too did not tender the Claimant’s termination letter in evidence. What was tendered by DW2 is a letter dated 15th July 2014 where the Claimant’s terminal benefits were calculated. This letter was not the Claimant’s termination letter. In the absence of the termination letter in evidence, this court does not have the opportunity to see its content to know whether the termination was on disciplinary grounds or for services no longer required. It is however not in dispute that the Claimant’s employment was terminated on 7th May 2014 by the 3rd Defendant. In his evidence, the Claimant narrated that he was given two queries and he replied the query. He was then given two weeks suspension from 23/4/2014 and he resumed duty on 7/5/2014. On the day he resumed work was the same day he was given his letter of termination of employment. The Claimant has now alleged that the termination of his employment was vindictive, unreasonable, illegal, null and void. He also said he was never informed of any wrongdoing or given any opportunity to defend himself. In master and servant employment, the issue whether or not a termination of the employment is wrongful depends of the terms and conditions of the employment. The employee alleging wrongful termination of employment is expected to plead and prove the terms of his contract of employment and explain the manner the said terms of the contract were breached by the employer when his employment was being 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 employer in the termination of his employment. See PETROLEUM TRAINING INSTITUTE vs. MATTHEW (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 623) 1949 at 1967; W.A.E.C vs. OSHIONEBO (2007) All FWLR (Pt. 370) 1501 at 1512. I have examined the facts and evidence of the Claimant but I cannot find where he complains about the breach of any condition of his employment in the termination of his employment. The only complaints I can see that he made are that he was never informed of any wrongdoing and not given any opportunity to defend himself. The Claimant has said he was queried and suspended by the 3rd Defendant. It was the day he resumed from the suspension that his employment was terminated. The Claimant needs no soothsayer to tell him that the termination of his employment was on account of the wrongdoing for which he was queried and suspended. The queries and the suspension he was given are ample information to him of the reason for the termination of his employment. In any case, the fact that he was not informed of any wrongdoing before his employment was terminated, as alleged by him, does not affect the termination. In master and servant employment, the employer has the right to terminate the employment or dismiss the employee at any time, whether with or without a reason. See TEXACO NIG. PLC vs. KEHINDE (2002) FWLR (Pt. 94) 143 at 160. Therefore, the 3rd Defendant is not under any obligation to give a reason to terminate the Claimant’s employment. I also find the Claimant’s allegation that he was not given opportunity to defend himself to be totally misleading. Exhibit G is a query given to the Claimant by the Head of Operations of the 3rd Defendant on 17/4/2014. The query alleged breach of information. The Claimant answered the query same day in Exhibit H. He said he was given another query on 22/4/2014 which was the same day he was suspended. The Claimant did not say he replied this query at any time before his employment was terminated on 7/5/2014. By effect of the queries, the Claimant was given notice of the infractions committed by him and he was given the chance to explain himself. He did not reply the query given to him on 22/4/2014. He cannot complain that he was not given opportunity to defend himself. Where a servant is given notice of allegation of misconduct and also given opportunity to answer to the allegation, the requirement of fair hearing has been satisfied. See NEPA vs. ENYONG (2003) FWLR (Pt. 175) 452 at 472; NATIONAL BANK OF NIGERIA vs. OMOTAYO (2002) FWLR (Pt. 114) 454 at 466. The Claimant has also failed to prove that the termination of his employment was wrongful. The 1st relief sought by the Claimant fails completely. In relief 2, the Claimant sought this court to declare that the deduction of the sum of N30,000 from his salary for the month of March 2014 was vindictive, unwarranted, unjust, improper and unlawful. He proceeded to seek in relief 3 [b] a refund of the said sum to him. In his evidence, the Claimant said when he proceeded on two weeks suspension from 23/4/2014 to 7/5/2014, the loss of 2 weeks’ salary ought to fall within this period of suspension but not before the suspension. The Defendant however deducted N30,000 from his salary for April 2014. In defence of this claim, the Defendant said the sums of N18,537.20 and N11,000 were deducted from the Claimant’s salary by the 3rd Defendant being two weeks’ pay and housing loan repayment. The suspension letter is Exhibit K. The Claimant was informed that he was placed on two weeks suspension without pay from 23/4/2014 to 7/5/2014. The implication is that the Claimant is not entitled to salary for the two weeks. While the Claimant said the sum of N30,000 was what the 3rd Defendant deducted from his April 2014 salary, the Defendant said the sum of N18,537.20 only was deducted as salary for two weeks, although the Defendants failed to mention the month’s salary in which the deduction was effected. Having averred in his pleading and evidence that the sum of N30,000 was deducted from his April salary, the Claimant however mentioned in the claim that the N30,000 was made from his salary for March 2014. He tendered his payslips for February, March and April 2014 in evidence. They are Exhibits E1, E2 and E3 respectively. I have examined the payslips but I cannot see where the sum of N30,000 was stated to have been deducted from his salary for March 2014, being two weeks pay deductions. The Claimant’s pay for February and March 2014 are almost the same amount. I have not seen any entry in the payslip for March 2014 to show that two weeks salary was deducted from the salary of the month. I find no evidence to support the Claimant’s claim in relief 2 and 3 [b] that the sum of N30,000 was deducted from his salary for March 2014. However, as against the net pay for February and March 2014, the Claimant’s net pay for April 2014 was reduced to the sum of N18,537.21. It appears the deduction was made from this month’s salary. The Claimant said this clearly in paragraph 13 of his statement of facts and evidence. Why then did he mention in the claim that it was March 2014 salary? I have considered the Claimant’s complaint in paragraph 13 of his statement of facts and evidence and I observe that he didn’t complain that the deduction was excessive. His complaint is that the deduction ought to be made for the period of suspension and not before. The suspension was handed to him in the month of April 2014. He was not to earn any salary between 23/4/2014 to 7/5/2014. Therefore, when his April 2014 salary was paid, he was entitled only to the sum due up the date the suspension started. The Claimant cannot expect full salary for the month. Now, the month’s salary which was deducted is April 2014. Whether or not the N30,000 deducted from his April salary was appropriate or excessive is not the issue in this case. Even if I am to consider whether the 3rd Defendant over deducted from the Claimant’s April 2014 salary, the Claimant did not plead any fact or adduce any evidence that will enable the court determine what the correct or proper deduction ought to be. This court cannot also undertake the duty without having being first presented with facts and evidence in that direction. In the result, I find that the Claimant has not proved his claims in reliefs 2 and 3 [b]. The Claimant also claims payment of his salaries from June 2014 to date. This is in relief 3 [a]. The Claimant’s employment was terminated on 7th May 2014. I have held in this judgment that his claim to have the termination set aside in relief 1 is unmeritorious. Accordingly, the Claimant ceased to be an employee of the 2nd and 3rd Defendants from 7th May 2014. He has also not said he performed any duty for the 2nd and 3rd Defendants since the time his employment was terminated. The Claimant is therefore not entitled to be paid any salaries for the period he was no longer in the Defendants’ employment. The law is settled that a servant whose employment has been terminated cannot claim for salary or allowances for periods he was no longer in the employment or did not render any service to the employer. See SPRING BANK vs. BABATUNDE (2012) All FWLR (Pt. 609) 1191 at 1205. Consequently, the Claimant’s claim in relief 3 [a] where he sought the order of court directing the Defendants to continue to pay him monthly salaries after he had ceased to be an employee of the Defendants lacks merit and fails too. In view of the foregoing, the Claimant has not made out any case for payment of the general damages and cost sought in reliefs 3 [c] and [d]. These claims also fail. On the whole, I find that the Claimant has not been able to prove his claims. The suit fails totally and it hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their costs. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice O. Y. Anuwe Judge