Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. Introduction & Claims 1.1. By his General Form of Complaint filed on 12/4/16, Claimant sought the following reliefs from this Court - 1. A Declaration that the refusal, omission, failure and/or neglect of the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the agreed remuneration in the letter of appointment of 14 February, 2014 for the period of 1st September, 2014 to 30th, April 2015 is a breach of contract of employment. 2. Award of the sum of =N=577,413.33 (Five Hundred and Seventy Seven Thousand, Four Hundred and Thirteen Naira and Thirty Three Kobo) being the balance of the Claimant's salary and allowances as agreed to be paid to the Claimant for the period of September 1, 2014 to 30th April, 2015. 3. Award of the sum of =N=60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being basic salary for one month in lieu of notice. 4. Interest at the rate of 27% per annum from the 20th February, 2015 until the date of this Complaint and thereafter at 10% until the whole Judgment sum and interest are liquidated. 1.2. Claimant's Complaint was accompanied by Statement of Facts, witness deposition, list of witness, as well as list and copies of documents to be relied upon at the trial. The Defendant reacted by filing a Memorandum of Conditional Appearance along with a statement of defence, list of witness, depositions of its witnesses including the list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. 2. Case of the Claimant 2.1. Claimant opened his case on18/10/18, testified in chief and tendered 3 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. LA1 - Exh. LA3. The case of the Claimant in brief is that he was employed by the Defendant as a Distribution Substation Operator from 14/2/14; that he was paid salary by the Defendant till August 2014 and that his salaries for the months of September, 2014 to 30th April 2015 remained outstanding. 2.2. Under cross examination, Claimant testified that he accepted the offer of employment with Defendant; that he submitted the letter of acceptance with two passport photographs to the Defendant; that the office of Defendant is at Salvation Army, Ibadan; that he was posted to Mokola sub-station; that he received salary from defendant though not all; that he received salary from Defendant; that the substations were managed by Defendant and IBEC.; that at the time he was employed there was Ibadan Electricity Company in existence; that he is not aware that Defendant did not manage any substation in Ibadan; that he is not aware that the continuation to manage the substation in Ibadan was for 6 months by the letter given to him; that no company took over the management of Ibadan substations at the time he left Defendant; that he is not aware that IBDEC took over management of the substations after 6 months in Ibadan; that no letter was given to him to the effect that Defendant managed 6 substations in Ogun State; that he knows the MD of Defendant’s name Gioco; that he does not know if MBH Power Co. Ltd managed the substations in Oyo State and that he does not know if MBH Power Co. Ltd. was paying him while he managed the substations in Ibadan. 3. Case of the Defendant 3.1. The Defendant commence the defence of this case on 5/2/19. It called 3 witnesses in all in its defence. 3.2. The case of the Defendant as revealed from its pleadings and evidence in chief is that sometime in January 2014 the defendant commenced negotiation with the Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd, the operators of the National Integrated Power Project (NIPP) for the award of contract for management of some electricity substations in Oyo and Ogun States; that Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd later awarded contract for the management of some substations in Ogun State to the Defendant which contract was finalized and signed on 21st March 2014; that the project was for an interim period of 6 months as the contract was billed to terminate and did terminate on 31st August 2014; that upon the termination of the contract, the Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd handed over the project to Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (IBEDC); that the Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (IBEDC) had since 31st August 2014 managed all substations in Oyo, Osun and Ogun States; that under the agreement the defendant reached with Niger Delta Power Holding Company Ltd, she was to mange only Ijoko, Itele, Olomore, Owode-Yewa and Papalanto injection substations in Ogun State; 3.3. It was the case of the Defendant that it had earlier bided for the management of substations in Ibadan but was not successful as the contract for the management of substations in Ibadan was awarded to MBH Power Co. Ltd; that it was the MBH Power Co. Ltd that managed substations in Ibadan before same were taken over by Ibadan Electricity Distribution Company Ltd (IBEDC) from 31st August 2014; that the offer of appointment letter given to the Claimant herein was given when the Defendant wanted to recruit staff in anticipation that the defendant would be awarded the contract for the management of substations in Ibadan area which never happened; that upon discovering that the defendant will not be awarded the contract for the substations in Ibadan, the defendant immediately communicated same to the claimant though he never accepted the offer of appointment and the defendant equally wrote him to revoke the offer of appointment; that the Defendant never paid the Claimant or any other person that managed any substations in Ibadan and is not owing the Claimant any outstanding salaries and that the Defendant was only awarded the contract for four substations in Ogun State namely Ijoko, Olomore, Owode-Yewa and Papalanto substations. 3.4. It called one Akanji Peter Oludele as its DW1. The witness testified in chief by adopting his witness deposition of 20/4/16 as his evidence in chief. Witness did not tender any document as exhibits. Under cross examination witness stated that he is a site Engineer with Defendant in charge of contract; that he has been with the Defendant for 20 years; that Defendant is his source of income; that he would not want anything untoward to happen to it; that he does not know the Claimant; that he has not seen him before; that he does not know all the staff employed by Defendant since he started working for it; that he does not work in all the sites of Defendant but that he knows all the sites and that he was not involved in any banking operation of the Defendant. 3.5. One Godson Ifeanyiaka who testified as DW2 adopted his written deposition of 20/4/16 as his evidence in chief and tendered 2 documents which were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. GNL1 & Exh. GNL2 respectively. In cross examination, witness stated that Defendant sells electrical materials and executes contracts; that he met claimant before issuing him Exh. LA1(1&2); that Defendant issued Exh. LA1 to the Claimant; that Claimant was not part of the negotiation with Niger Delta Power Holding Co; that Exh. LA1 was delivered to the Claimant by hand; that Claimant did not acknowledge the letter; that he does not have copies of letters he issued to those employed in Ogun Before the court; that to the best of my knowledge an Indian company won the bid for Ibadan substations and took over the claimant and others already employed by Defendant and that Exh. GNL2 was delivered to the Claimant by me by hand. 3.6. One Emeka Ifeanyiaka testified as DW3, adopted his witness deposition dated 9/4/19 and tendered 2 documents as exhibits. The documents were admitted in evidence and marked as Exh. EI1 & Exh. EI2. While being cross examined, witness stated that he is a graduate of Estate Management and neither an Accountant nor I.T expert; that Exh. EI1 was not addressed to him; that he only collected from the Bank and given to Defendant; that he does not know anything about the account; that he printed out Exh. EI1; that it emanated from one Chinaka Udoku; that the email address to which Exh. EI1 was sent is not on Exhibit EI1 and that the name of defendant is not on the Exh. EI1. 4. Final Addresses of Learned Counsel 4.1. At the close of trial and pursuant to the direction of the Court learned Counsel to the Defendant filed a 9-page final written address. In it learned Counsel set down a lone issue for determination as follows - Having regard to the pleadings, the exhibits tendered and the evidence before the court, whether or not the claimant has proved his case so as to be entitled to judgment in this case. 4.2. Arguing this lone issue learned Counsel submitted that Claimant is not entitled to the reliefs sought; that Exh. GNL2 being the basis of Claimant's case was revoked; that the appointment was terminated by reason of lapse of time and that failure of the Claimant to accept the offer within the prescribed time limit terminated the said offer citing Amana Suites Hotels Limited v. PDP (2007)6 NWLR (Pt. 1031)453; that without conceding that Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant, the Defendant reserves the right to terminate the appointment during the probation period and that the Defendant was not under an obligation to give notice of termination to an employee who is under probation citing Ogbonna v. Neptune Software Limited (2016) NLLR (Pt. 228)511. Learned Counsel submitted that Claimant failed to prove that he worked for the Defendant . Counsel prayed the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant in its entirety. 4.3. On 18/10/19 a 5-page final written address was filed on behalf of the Claimant. In it learned Counsel set down the following 4 issues for determination - 1. Whether or not the Claimant was in the employment of the Defendant 2. Whether or not the letter of appointment was revoked. 3. Whether or not the Court can rely on the statement of account of the Defendant. 4. Whether or not the Defendant is indebted to the Claimant. 4.4. In arguing these issues, learned Counsel submitted that by Exh. LA1 Claimant was in the employment; that the acceptance of offer is a reciprocal act which indicates his agreement to the terms and may be demonstrated by conduct of the parties, by their words or by documents passed between them citing Meibaiye v. Nareli International Limited (2009)16 NWLR (Pt. 1167)327 at 331. Counsel submitted that the evidence led by the was not challenged or controverted under cross examination. Counsel urged the Court to find in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. 5. Decision 5.1. I read all the processes filed by either side, listened to the testimonies of the witnesses called as well watched their demeanor. I heard the oral submissions of learned Counsel and carefully evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted at trial. Having done all this, I set down a lone issue for the just determination of this case as follows - Whether the Claimant has discharged the burden of proof placed on him. 5.2. It is a trite law that he who approaches the Court for judicial redress has the burden placed on him to prove his entitlement to the reliefs sought. This is aptly expressed by the maxim that he who asserts must prove. The proof required is by cogent, credible and admissible evidence. This requirement is both statutory as well as supported by the case-law authorities. 5.3. The first relief sought by the Claimant is for a declaration. The law is trite on the principles for the grant of declaratory reliefs. It is trite that an application for a declaratory relief is an invitation to the Court to exercise its discretionary power in favour of the applicant. Though it is exercise of discretionary power the exercise of that power must be done judicially. This implies that all relevant facts that could affect the withholding of the discretion of the Court to make the declaration, are properly canvassed and placed before the Court for consideration. The discretion cannot rightly be based on facts or circumstances which have not been submitted by the parties to the Court, but which the Court on its own, has restlessly fathomed out outside the issues, raised by the pleading. See Ukwu v. Offorah (1992) 6 NWLR (Pt. 246 page 236. It is trite law that a declaratory relief is a discretionary remedy which would be refused where the Plaintiff fails to establish his alleged entitlements to the satisfaction of the Court. See Ogolo & Ors. v. Ogolo & Ors. (2003) LPELR 2309. Pemu J.C.A in Uwandu v. Chinagorom & Ors. (2019) LPELR (CA) aptly espoused on the principles governing the grant of a declaratory relief thus - ''It is trite law that the purpose of a declaratory action is essentially to seek an equitable relief in which the Plaintiff/Claimant prays the Court, in the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, to pronounce or declare an existing state of affairs in law in his favour, as may be discernible from the averments in the statement of claim. In order to be entitled to a declaration, a person must show the existence of a legal right, subsisting or in future, and that the right is contested. What will entitle a Plaintiff/Claimant to a declaration is a claim which a Court is prepared to recognize and if validly made, it is prepared to give legal consequence to. A.G. CROSS RIVER STATE v. A.G. FEDERATION & ORS (2012) LPELR 9335." 5.4. The bottom line of these expositions is that declaratory reliefs are not granted as a matter of course. Applicant must adduce cogent and credible evidence in support of his claim to be entitled to same. Besides, declaratory reliefs are also not granted based on admission of a party. It is only grantable on exhibition of sufficient and credible evidence. The first relief of the Claimant is for a declaration that the refusal, omission, failure and/or neglect of the Defendant to pay to the Claimant the agreed remuneration in the letter of appointment of 14 February, 2014 for the period of 1st September, 2014 to 30th, April 2015 is a breach of contract of employment. In support of this relief, Claimant testified in chief and was cross examined. He also tendered 3 documents as exhibits. The exhibits were his letter of appointment Exh. LA1, letter from his Counsel to the Managing Director of the Defendant Exh. LA2 & letter from the learned Counsel to the Defendant Exh. LA3. 5.5. The facts upon which the Claimant seeks this declaratory relief is that he was appointed by the Defendant as a Distribution Substation Operator from 14/2/14; that he was paid salary by the Defendant till August 2014 and that his salaries for the months of September, 2014 to 30th April 2015 remained outstanding. Aside from the contention of the Defendant that it revoked the said contract, the Defendant indeed claimed it never paid the Claimant any salary as he did not work for it. Claimant is under an obligation to establish the existence of employment relationship between him and the Defendant. This burden is certainly not discharged by merely making averments to that effect. Did the Defendant pay any salary to the Claimant? Though that was the story of the Claimant there is nothing before me to support that assertion. Claimant did not exhibit any pay slip to show payment of salary to him by the Defendant. How was the said salary paid? By cash or through Bank transfers? There is no evidence of this. A Bank statement of account would have sufficed in the circumstances. I find no sufficient evidence led by the Claimant to be entitled to the exercise of the discretionary power of this Court in granting him the declaration sought. I thus refuse and dismiss same accordingly. 5.6. The declaratory relief sought is the main relief and the foundation upon which all other prayers of the Claimant rested. That foundation has, by the findings respecting the first relief, collapsed. Thus the basis upon which 2 to 4 of the Claimant is founded has failed to withstand the test of proof required. It is a trite proposition and the state of the law that one cannot put something on nothing and expect it to stay there. It certainly will collapse just as this case has collapsed. 5.7. 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. 5.8. I make no order as to cost. 22. Judgment is entered accordingly. ___________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge