Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. This claimant approached this Court via a general form of complaint dated and filed 03/10/2017. There was an attempt by the claimant to amend his complaint; the application for amendment was refused by the court. The complaint was accompanied with Statement of facts, witness statement on oath, list of witnesses, list of documents, and photocopies of documents to be relied on at trial. The claimant vide this action is seeking for the following reliefs;- 1. A Declaration that the dismissal of the Claimant by the Defendant is wrongful and unfair, done with bad faith, malice and an abuse of the rights of the claimant. 2. An ORDER of this court ordering the Defendant to pay the Claimant all his entitlement, salary and remuneration from 25th August 2017 till judgment is delivered. 3. An ORDER of Court ordering the Defendant to pay the Claimant general damages of the sum of One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000,000). 4. An ORDER of this Court directing the Defendant to pay 10% court interest. 5. And any other order this Court may deem fit to Order in this suit. 2. The Defendants entered appearance on 17/10/2017 and with the leave of court granted on 17/07/2018, filed statement of defence and counter claim which was accompanied by a written statement on Oath, list of witnesses, list of documents and photocopies of document to be relied on at the trial. The defendant counter claimed and sought the following reliefs; a. A declaration that the action of the claimant/defendant to counterclaim is defamatory in law. b. A declaration that the insult, assaults and embarrassment meted on the counter-claimant can only be estimated but not quantified in monetary terms. c. The sum of N100, 000,000.00 only as general damages. d. The sum of N4.5 million as cost of litigation. e. 10% post judgment interest on the sum awarded. 3. The claimant’s reply dated and filed on 27/07/2018 to the Defendant’s statement of defence and counter claim. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT 4. The Claimant opened his case on 05/11/2018 wherein he testified as CW1. In the course of giving his evidence in chief, 17 documents were sought to be tendered in evidence. The documents tendered were admitted into evidence and marked as exhibits CW1A, Samsung Phone, CW1B, Techno phone, CW1C, offer of Employment dated 15/08/2013, CW1D, Letter of promotion dated 14/8/17, CW1E1-2, Re-promotion letter dated 15/08/2017, CW1F1-2, Re-promotion letter dated 15/08/2017, CW1G, Application for 5 days sick leave, CW1H, Internal memo of 17/8/17, CW1I, internal memo application for transport fare dated 18/8/17, CW1J, Internal memo dated 17/08/17, CW1K, Re-notification of 3rd quarter 2017 board meeting, CW1L, Internal memo dated 17/08/17, CW1M, letter of authority dated 22/9/17, CW1N, Special retainer ship agreement dated 30/09/18, CW1O, Termination of employment dated 25/08/17, CW1P, A photocopy of fidelity cheque, CW1Q, Photocopy of Arik Air Ticket. The claimant adopted his two witness statement on Oath as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case. 5. From the statement of facts, witness statement on Oath and the oral testimony, the case of the Claimant was that he was employed by the Defendant as General Manager on 15th August, 2013 and he worked as General Manager until 14th August 2017 when the Chairman with the intention to frustrate him issued promotion letter with a new salary structure dated 14 August, 2017 promoting him to the Group General Manager and demanded he reports to the Defendant’s office in Lagos to resume duty. The claimant via a memo wrote for some time off to enable him take care of his pregnant wife before relocating to Lagos, However his request was declined and promised him relocation sum of N250,000 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only. It is the testimony of the claimant that he reported to the company’s office in Abuja to get prepared for the trip only to be thrown out of the premises by two police men. Claimant testified that despite been thrown out he resumed at the Lagos office on the 21st of August 2017 but when he got there he was dragged out of the office by two of the Defendant company security men who said they were instructed to do so. He further testified that after the incident he exchanged text messages with the Defendant’s chairman only to be told by him that no one had seen him at the office. He further testified that he checked his email address and saw termination letter from the defendant, he stated that he felt embarrassed and returned back to Abuja. He testified that when he returned he instructed his lawyer Victor Nnaji to go and collect the termination letter and cheque referred to in the termination letter while informing the Chairman via text message about it but the Executive Director Miss Chidinma Mbanisi refused to release the letter and the cheque. Claimant testified that subsequently he sent his wife, Mrs Blessing Ezeh who is his next of kin to collect same with the same authority letter given to his lawyer but she still wasn’t given the termination letters and cheques. Claimant stated that the Defendant nor its chairman did not give him the two cheques totalling N250,000 for relocation. 6. In claimant’s response to the Defendants statement of defence, He testified that he did not reject the offer presented to him neither did he abuse the defendant’s Chairman. He further denied that he was given any instruction to resign within 10 days. 7. In his response to the counterclaim he testified that he did not rain insults on the Defendant’s chairman, neither did he demand for N50, 000,000 or any sum from the Defendant’s Chairman. 8. The Claimant is praying the Court to grant his reliefs as stated on his complaint. CROSS EXAMINATION 9. Under cross-examination, CW testified that he worked with the defendant for 4 years before his termination and that he had never had any problem with the defendant before this time, and the relationship between him and the defendant had been cordial until around 27/4/17 when a group of DSS invaded the company and packed some documents. He testified that he is from the same town with the MD and he is his uncle. He testified that he was employed as the General Manager, Banex Plaza, Abuja and he has never complained about the terms of employment. He further testified that when he was promoted and sent to Lagos he took it with joy, he testified that he did not reject the offer, rather he requested for more time but it was refused. He stated that he demanded for 6 months before he relocates to Lagos and that he gave reasons, one of which was that his wife was heavy but his request was turned down so he moved to Lagos on 28/8/17. He further testified that before he left for Lagos, he saw some forged documents and wrote petition to ICPC, and when he asked the MD he told him not to ask him. He testified that he never quarrelled, that he only asked him question and he responded to same. He stated that he indeed had meeting with the MD where for people were around, they include The chairman of the defendant Victor Mbansi, Executive Director, Chidinma Mbansi, Company secretary; Dennis Makeri and the consultant to the Company; Ernest Chikake and at the said meeting the relationship was cordial and there was no shouting. He further testified that he received the promotion letter on 14/8/17 and asked to move to Lagos21/8/17 and he moved to Lagos21/8/17 and that it was after the meeting he went to Lagos. He testified that he took casual leave and his application was turned down. He further testified that his promotion to Lagos has higher salary and benefits. He stated that he never met Chidinma and he never said he would petition her at that meeting, that he only wrote a petition after his employment was terminated, a termination letter he saw on 25/8/17. He also stated that when he got to Lagos he received a call from CBN that there was a forged board resolution sent to CBN and then after his termination he wrote a petition to ICPC and NDIC. He testified that it was after the raid of his office by the DSS that his relationship became sour. He further stated that he remembered petitioning the police then he wrote to ICPC because of the threat to his life and that he sued him because of defamation of character. CW1 testified that he was invited when he was in Lagos to come and collect his severance benefits and he gave his lawyer letter of authority to collect it on his behalf and when it wasn’t given to his lawyer he sent his wife who is his next of kin with a letter of authority but they refused to give her. He further testified that as the GM then, nobody’s employment was terminated, they only resigned. He stated that it is proper to give the cheque to the proxy if there was a letter of authority. He testified that he moved to Lagos and he was given money to travel and that if there was a quarrel, they would not have given him money to travel to Lagos and that nobody contacted him to resign within 10 days. He further testified that he knows a lot about the company and the police arrested him at a time, however he did not sue for unlawful arrest. He concluded by stating that the company had a right to terminate his employment but in a lawful manner and not to humiliate him despite being given only 7 days to move which he complied with. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 10. One Dennis Makeri testified as the former Internal Auditor and now the General Manger gave his testimony for the Defendant as DW1 while Miss Chidinma Mbanisi the Executive Director of the Defendant’s Company testified as DW2. Both DW1 and DW2 adopted their witness statement on Oath deposed to. The case of the Defendants is that it never frustrated the claimant, but rather in its goodwill promoted the claimant. The defendant witnesses further testified that the claimant invited the company’s Chairman, the Executive Director (DW2) and the Internal Auditor (DW1) and Pastor Ernest Chukwuekem (the defendant’s Consultant) to the chairman’s office and engaged them for about 45minutes saying all sorts of things as to why he could not go to Lagos and then demanded the sum of N50,000,000 (Fifty Million Naira) if not he would pull the defendant down and disgrace it out of business. Defendant’s witnesses testified that thereafter the threats and blackmail; claimant was advised to resign within 10 days in a dignified manner. It is the testimony of the Defendant that when the claimant failed to send his letter of resignation, he was forced to terminate his employment on the 25th of August, 2017 and hence there was no need for him to show up in Lagos after being terminated. Furthermore the Defendant testified that the claimant sent a text message to the chairman stating that he would be coming by on the 21st of September, 2017 to pick up his termination letter and cheques but never showed up. Defendants testified that the claimant came to the office and misrepresented to the cashier which led the cashier to release the sum of N50,000 which was earlier approved for his transfer to Lagos. The Defendant testified that its chairman suffered great pains and damages and as a result of the shock he should be compensated to the tune of N100, 000,000 (One Hundred Million Naira) only. 11. The Defendant urged the Court to grant their claims against the claimant while dismissing the Claimant’s claims. CROSS-EXAMINATION 12. Under cross-examination DW1 informed the court that he had worked with the defendant for 2 years and 2 months and that he knew most of the senior staff of the defendant. DW1 was showed EXHIBIT CW1O- He testified that he was aware of the person who signed the document and that the letter was prepared by Lawyers. He further testified that the Defendant Company does not have subsidiary companies and that the claimant was employed as Director Banex Ltd in 2017 but not as GM. He further testified that he was not aware that the claimant sent application for sick leave. When shown EXHIBIT CW1H- he testified that he responded to the memo on 17/8/17. He further testified that he was aware that the claimant was asked to resign. 13. Under cross-examination DW2 testified that she was not a lawyer and that she knew the claimant’s signature. However she stated that she did not know the Claimant’s wife very well and she did not see her the day she came to collect claimant’s terminal benefit, neither is she aware she was in her office. She also testified that when the claimant’s entitlement was ready, an email was sent to him. She stated that she was one of those arrested by the DSS but the matter was resolved although she was not aware of the details. She testified that the claimant alongside others and herself were all detained. She stated that she could not remember the Lawyer that came to collect the claimant’s cheque. She testified that in respect of EXHIBIT CW1K- it is an email address and she does not have a problem with signature and the complainant. WRITTEN ADDRESS OF DEFENDANTS. 14. The counsel for the Defendant filed its final written address dated 26/6/19 and filed 27/06/2019, Counsel for the Defendant with the leave of court granted on 22/10/19 adopted his final written address as his argument in the case and urged the Court to dismiss the claimant’s case and grant defendant’s counter claim. In the written address two issues were submitted for determination by the Honourable Court, to wit: 15. Whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the reliefs sought from the Honourable Court. 16. Whether the defendant is not entitled to the Counter claim on the strength of the evidence adduced in this case. 17. In arguing issue 1; Whether the Claimant has established his entitlement to the reliefs sought from the Honourable Court. The counsel for the Defendants argued that the claimant is only challenging his dismissal in this case; however there was absolutely no dismissal, there was only a termination of contract of employment. Counsel stated that his failure to show how his contract of employment was breached has contravened the provision of the Law, see NITEL PLC AND ANOR V AKWA (2006) 2 NWLR, PT 964, PG 391. 18. Counsel further argued that the claimant’s witness statement on oath which he adopted before the honourable Court was not sworn before the Commissioner of Oath and hence same is fundamentally defective and hence the implication is that the averments as pleaded by the claimant are not backed up by evidence hence goes to no issue and claimant will not be entitled to judgment; see ALIYU V BULAKI (2019) LPELR-46513 (CA). Counsel submitted that claimant failed to lead evidence to prove his case has left the court with no choice than to believe the case of the defendant/ counter claimant. Counsel further argued that in a contract between Master and Servant, the master has the right to sack the servant and in this case the defendant has exercised the right and also the defendant as the employer has the right in law to terminate the contract for no reason at all, and that the court cannot force a willing servant on an unwilling master, see GEIDAM V NEPA (2000) LPELR-6848 (CA). 19. Counsel submitted that the claimant is only entitled to terminal benefits as computed in his termination letter dated 25th August, 2017. Furthermore it is the argument of the Defendant the claimant was promoted and instead of taking the promotion and transfer, he gave all manner of excuses and failed to report at the designated new office that came with said promotion, leading to his termination. Counsel argued that the Supreme Court in NWOBOSI V AFRICAN CONTINENTAL BANK LTD (1995)LPELR-2121 (SC), held that any employee or servant who disobeys its master risk dismissal from its master’s services. 20. Counsel also argued that the claimant’s relief no.3 for general damages of one hundred Million Naira (N100, 000,000) is predicated on the 1st relief relating to wrongful dismissal which he failed to give oral or documentary evidence to support before the honourable Court. Counsel stated that the law is that where there is a breach of contract the measure of damages is always dictated by the condition of service, which the claimant did not tender in this case. See OAK PENSIONS LTD & ORS V. OLAYINKA (2017) LPELR- 43207 (CA), where the Court held; “The law is also settled that the rights, obligations and liabilities of the parties to such a contract, are to be determined on the basis of the terms and conditions to which they have freely and voluntarily agreed to govern and regulate the relationship between them.” 21. Counsel submitted that claimant has failed to tender any document to show the terms of any contract which was breached by the defendant in this case, and having failed to do this, he is not entitled to damages. 22. Counsel concluded his argument of issue 1 by submitting that the law does not allow a litigant to pass the cost of prosecuting his claims to the other party, as it is settled law that it is against the ethics and an affront to public policy to pass on the burden of solicitors fees to the other party as was done in this case. See S.P.D.C NIG VS OKONEDO (2008) 9 NWLR PT 1891, PAGE 85 AT 92. 23. In arguing issue 2; whether the defendant is not entitled to the Counter claim on the strength of the evidence adduced in this case counsel submitted that the defendant has sufficiently pleaded facts buttressing the tort of defamation in the counter claim, counsel argued that the defendant/ counter claimant has sufficiently highlighted the ingredients of defamation listed in DAURA V DANHAUWA (2009) LPELR- 3714 (CA) 24. Counsel argued that the claimant had made defamatory statements to the defendant’s chairman which impliedly means that the chairman was a crooked person. Counsel further argued that DW1 and DW2 had been called to testify firmly to the issue of defamation, and that claimant’s counsel failed to cross examine on the testimony of defamation to debunk same, hence it should be taken as an admission. Counsel submitted that averments of a witness that are not debunked by cross examination shall be admitted by the court as true. See AWAZIE V OKOROAFOR (2015) LPELR-40210 (CA). 25. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s case and grant all the reliefs claimed in the counter claim as this is the only way the reputation of the chairman of the defendant can be redeemed. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT. 26. The claimant’s final written address was dated 25/9/2019 and filed on 04/10/2019. The Claimant’s counsel V.I Nnaji, Esq. adopted his written address on 22/10/2019 as his argument in the suit while praying the Court to grant all the reliefs. Counsel submitted a sole issue for determination; to wit: ‘’WHETHER THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO HIS CLAIMS.’’ 27. In arguing the issue identified for resolution counsel argued that the law is clear that a reply is a defence of the plaintiff to a counter claim of the Defendant or to the new issues raised by the Defendant in his defence. SEE DR. RASAKI OSHODI & ORS V YISA OSENI EYIFUNMI & ANOR (2001) 7 SC (PT 11) 145 @ 159 28. Counsel argued that the Defendant did not give any further evidence to establish its position that the claimant insulted, threatened, or embarrassed the Defendant’s Chairman; neither did they give any evidence to show that they instructed the claimant to resign in 10 days. 29. Counsel stated the law is that he who asserts must prove while relying on the case of ELEMA V AKENZUA (2000) 6 SCNJ 226 AT 238. Claimant’s Counsel further stated that the Law is clear that averments not supported by evidence are mere averments and goes to no issue see NKUMA V ODILI (2006) SC 57. 30. Claimant’s counsel further argued that his employment was not a contract of service so the terms that should apply should be reliable. Counsel stated that there was a presence of Malice (ill will) and bad faith in the claimant’s termination because the Defendant’s chairman removed the claimant from all the existing positions he was in and made him the Group General Manager of the Defendant, a position which was merely created to lure the claimant out of other positions and made him go to Lagos from where he was dismissed from his job. Furthermore Counsel argued that claimant was never given fair hearing to clear himself of every allegation levelled against him, so it was rather obvious that the Defendant acted in bad faith towards the Claimant. 31. Counsel while relying on the case of STEYR (NIGERIA) LIMITED V GADZAMA (1995) 7 NWLR PT.407, held that the Court ought to look at the manner in which claimant was treated as irresponsible. Counsel held that the claimants suffered the hardship meted on him just from his complaints in the course of doing his duty which he prayed the court to relate to ARTICLE 5 OF THE TERMINATION OF EMPLOYMENT CONVENTION and hold that the Defendant had no valid reason for their actions. 32. Claimant’s counsel held that the its process was duly signed before the Commissioner of oaths and that both the Claimant and Court’s copies were duly sworn before the commissioner of oath, the process unit may have made an error on the Defendant’s copy by not signing it. 33. In concluding his submission counsel urged the court to grant all the reliefs of the claimant as prayed and hold that the Defendant dismissed the Claimant without any valid reason. COURT’S DECISION 34. I have considered the processes filed in this suit as well as the written and oral submissions of counsel for both sides in respect of their respective positions before the court. 35. From the pleadings and evidence adduced before the court there are two issues to be resolved. They are:- 1. Whether the claimant has vide the evidence adduced before the court has proved his claim to be entitled to same. 2. Whether the defendant/counter claimant has proved entitlement to the counter-claim. 36. Before resolving the two issues identified for determination, it behoves on me to deal with some preliminary issues that need to be resolved. 37. The first is the submission of counsel for the defendant/counter claimant that the claimant’s witness statement on oath was not signed before commissioner for oath; the said witness statement is incapable of providing evidence in proof of the claimant’s pleading. Counsel urged the court to in the absence of a valid witness statement on oath hold that there is no evidence before the court in proof of the claimant’s pleading. 38. It is to be noted the objection to the claimant’s witness statement on oath is being raised at address stage; the counsel for the defendant never raised the issue in the course of the trial. The claimant was never confronted with the purported unsigned witness statement on oath. In any event the accurate record for the purpose of any trial before a court of law is the record of the court that is the authentic record. I have studied the entire record of the court/case file and the witness statement on oath of the claimant was dully signed on 3/10/2017 by both the claimant as deponent of same and the commissioner for oath. In view of this finding the objection of the counsel for the defendant/counter claimant is hereby discountenance for lacking in merit. 39. Another issue that need to be thrashed at this point is the objection of counsel for the defendant/counter claimant to the evidence on whether there is document before the court showing that cheque cannot be collected on behalf of the claimant. The objection of counsel for the defendant/counter claimant in the course of cross-examination of DW2, has no basis the issue on collection of cheque on behalf of the claimant for his entitlement is relevant in this proceeding objection of counsel is hereby rejected. 40. On issue one: Whether the claimant has vide the evidence adduced before the court has proved his claim to be entitled to same. 41. The claimant is seeking for grant of 6 reliefs before the court. One is declaratory order while 4 out of the 6 reliefs are for monetary claims. The 6 relief is an omnibus relief. Therefore, the reliefs can be classified into two broad categories. The first category relate to declaration of dismissal of the claimant from service wrongful, while the second category is monetary claims, which includes claim for entitlement, general damages and cost. I shall take the claim for declaration first. 42. By his relief ‘a’ which is for declaration that the dismissal of the claimant by the defendant is wrongful and unfair, done with bad faith, malice and an abuse of the rights of the claimant. The counsel for the defendant/counter claimant argued that the claimant in this case is challenging his dismissal in his first relief and there is no evidence on record relating to dismissal in this case. All the oral and documentary evidence adduced before the court relates to termination of contract of employment. 43. The law is trite that in an action for wrongful dismissal or termination of employment, the Claimant must place before the Court his contract of employment containing the terms and conditions of engagement. See AJI V CHAD BASIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (2015)) SC, IMONIKE V Anifowoshe v. Wema Bank Plc (2015) LPELR-24811 (CA). The Claimant must thereafter prove to the Court what makes the dismissal or termination of employment unlawful or wrongful within the confines of the applicable terms and conditions of service. See NITEL Plc vs. Akwa (2006) 2 NWLR (Pt 964) 391, Nig Gas Co Ltd vs Dudusola (2005) 18 NWLR (Pt.957) 292 & Amodu vs. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.150) 356. The Claimant in a bid to establish his contractual relationship with the defendant tendered exhibit CW1C, which is offer of employment issued to him by the defendant. 44. At the risk of repetition, it is well settled by a long line of decisions that an employee who complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated has the onus to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment, and prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. It is never the duty of the employer as a defendant to prove any of these facts. See Ziideel v. RSCSC [2007] LPELR-3544(SC); [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 SC; [2007] 1 – 2 SC 1, Morohunfolu v. Kwara Tech. [1990] 4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506 SC, Ningi v. FBN Plc [1996] 3 NWLR (Pt. 435) 220 CA, Katto v, CBN [1999] 6 NWLR (Pt. 607) 390 SC, Adams v. LSDPC [2000] 5 NWLR (Pt. 656) 291 CA, Igbinovia v. UBTH [2000] 8 NWLR (Pt. 667) 53 CA, Taduggoronno v. Gotom [2002] 4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453 CA, Okoebor v. Police Council [2003] 12 NWLR (Pt. 834) 444 SC, Ibama v. SPDC (Nig.) Ltd [2005] 17 NWLR (Pt. 954) 364 SC, Nigerian Gas Co. Ltd v. Dudusola [2005] 18 NWLR (Pt. 957) 292 CA, WAEC v. Oshionebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA and UBN v. Chinyere [2010] 10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 453 CA. 45. In proof of his case, the claimant placed before this Court a number of documents including his letters of employment (Exhibit CW1C) and promotion (Exhibit CWD). However, the claimant never tendered condition of service. 46. Generally, in master and servant it is the service agreement or the conditions of service that regulate the relationship between the employer and employee. See UNILAG V ADEGBITE (1973) 5 SC 149, INTERNATIONAL DRILLING LTD V AJIJOLA (1976) 1 ALL NLR PT.1, 177; 1976 2 SC 115, 1976 NSCC VOL.10 88, FAKUADE V OAUTH (1993) 1 NWLR (PT.291) 47, PIT V NESIMONE (1995) 6 NWLR (PT.402) 477. In the case at hand exhibit CW1C the letter of employment was the only document tendered by the claimant to support his case. The staff manual which contained conditions of service was not tendered by the claimant. The failure to tender the staff manual or conditions of service has left the court with no choice than to rely only on the offer of employment to the claimant exhibit CW1C. In exhibit CW1C any of the parties can during the period of probation terminate the contract of service by giving one Month notice or payment in lieu of notice. But, exhibit CW1C is silent about mode of termination or dismissal at the end of probationary period of 6 Months. 47. The case law on the subject of dismissal or termination of appointment imposed the onus of proof of dismissal and the way and manner the defendant breached the condition of service on the employee who alleges the breach. The failure by the claimant to discharge this onus is fatal to the case of the claimant. In the circumstance I have no choice than to refuse relief ‘a’ due to the claimant’s failure to prove wrongful dismissal due to non-production of the condition of service. 48. It is also to be noted that even exhibit CW1O, which is the letter with which the claimant’s employment was determined read Termination of Employment and not dismissal. In law there is a world of difference between dismissal and termination of employment, the two terms in Nigeria cannot be used interchangeably each has its own connotation when it comes to issue of employment, though they all end the contractual relationship between the employer and employee. The apex court has lucidly enunciated this distinction in the case of JOMBO V P. E. F. MGT. BOARD (2005) 7 SC PT.II 30 @ 43/44 PARAS 40-45, PER Katsina Alu, JSC (as he then was of blessed memory), he stated, thus:- ‘’Termination’’ and or ‘’Dismissal’’ of an employee by the employer translates into bringing the employment to an end. Under a termination of appointment, the employee is enabled to receive the terminal benefit under the contract of employment. ‘’Dismissal’’ on the other hand is punitive and depending on the contract of employment very often entails a loss of terminal benefits. It also carries on unflattering opprobrium to the employee.’’ 49. Since dismissal and termination are two different things, the claimant has failed in his duty of proving his claim before the court, exhibit CW1O clearly shows that claimant’s employment was terminated by the defendant and not dismissed. In the circumstances I hold that the claimant has not adduced credible, compelling evidence to warrant granting declaration that his employment was dismissed by the defendant. 50. It is also pertinent to note that the relationship between the claimant and the defendant in this case is that of master and servant or employer and employee. In this kind of relationship the parties are at liberty to end the relationship at their own will by complying with the procedure stipulated in the terms and conditions of the contract of service. Therefore, what determined the wrongfulness or otherwise of dismissal or termination is the contract of service itself and not bad faith or malice. This is because contract of service is the bedrock and basis upon which an aggrieved employee can predicate his claim. He fails or succeeds on his claim upon the agreed terms. In this case apart from the letter of offer of appointment exhibit CW1C no condition of service was produced before the court. Since the relationship is that of master and servant, it has been established that a master or employer has unfettered right and liberty to terminate or dismiss his servant’s employment at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all provided the terms of the contract of service between them are complied with. The motive which led to an employer to lawfully terminate his servant’s employment is not normally a relevant factor and the court will have no business with such motive but will only give effect to the contract of service between the parties. See DUDUSOLA V NIG. GAS CO. LTD 2013 3-4 SC PT.II 1 @ 19. 51. It is also to be noted that in exhibit CW1O the defendant did not give any reason for determining the claimant’s employment, the letter simply said ‘’your services are no longer required’’ the law is well settled that an employer brings contract of employment to an end by terminating or dismissing the employee, once the letter is issued and served it effectively ceases to be in the employment. What then is left is to determined subsisting rights of the claimant as provided in the contract of service. See CHUKWUMAH V SHELL PERTROLEUM (1993) 4 NWLR (PT.287) 512. Where employer does not give any reason for the termination of the appointment of an employee in accordance with the terms and conditions of the employment, the employer is not bound to give evidence as to any reason or reasons for the termination of the appointment. See IDONIBOYE-OBU V N. N. P. C. 2003 1 S. C. PT.I 40 @76. 52. The claimant has in his written address invited the court to hold that the claimant is duty bound to give reasons for determining his employment under the international best practices. It is to be noted that the claimant cannot at address stage invite the court to apply international best practices, by the rules of this court a party wishing the court to apply any convention on international best practice must plead and prove same by evidence the claimant has not done that he has not pleaded the international best practice he wanted the court to apply, in the circumstance this court must reject the invitation of counsel on that note. 53. Relief ‘b’ is for an order of this court ordering the defendant to pay the claimant all his entitlement, salaries and remuneration until 25th August 2017. The law is trite that claim for salaries, entitlement and remuneration are claim for special damages which have to be specifically pleaded and proved strictly. An employee making monetary claims, must first prove his entitlement to the monetary claim and how he came by the quantum of the monetary claim. 54. I must first state that the new dispensation is that whether termination or dismissal is wrong or not, all earnings of an employee prior to the dismissal must be paid by the employer to such an employee; of course once such is proved. See Udegbunam v. FCDA [2003] 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 487 SC, Underwater Eng. Co. Ltd v. Dubefon [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 156 SC. 55. In proof of his monetary claims, the claimant tendered exhibit CW1O letter of his termination of employment containing the tabulation of what he is entitled from the defendant. He also testified that he gave letter of authority to his wife to collect the check for the entitlement but the defendant refused to give his wife the check. He also testified that he authorized his lawyer to collect his check but DW2, refused to give the check to his lawyer. The defendant in their pleading and evidence before the court admitted the entitlement of claimant as per exhibit CW1O, in view of the admission of the defendant to the entitlement of the claimant to his terminal benefit as contained in his letter of termination exhibit CW1O, I have no difficulty in coming to conclusion that the defendant is entitled to the sum of N2,,800,000.00 (Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) as his terminal benefit from the defendant. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the claimant the said sums of money. 56. Reliefs ‘c’ and ‘d’ are for an order of court ordering the defendant to pay the clamant general damages of the sum of One Hundred Million Naira (N100,000,000.00) for the pain the defendant put the claimant through and 10% interest. These claims are defendant on the grant of relief ‘a’ declaration that the claimant’s dismissal from service is wrongful and unfair. The said relief having been refused it goes with reliefs ‘c’ and ‘d’ respectively. Therefore, reliefs c and d are not grantable same are hereby refused and dismissed. 57. The claimant and the defendant have made a lot of fuss on the issue of transfer of the claimant to Lagos. The claimant alleged that he was not paid transfer money he is entitled to be paid to by the defendant. The defendant in response is claiming that there was no need for claimant to travel to Lagos for the transfer as his employment with the defendant has been determined vide exhibit CW1O. 58. The evidence of the claimant on issue of transfer is more reliable than the evidence the defendant. Vide exhibit CW1D promotion letter the claimant was asked to report to Lagos on 21/8/2017. However vide exhibits DW2G1-2 and Cw1H, the claimant attempted to have his reporting to Lagos delayed, but vide exhibit DW2F1-2, the defendant turned down the request of the claimant. Based on the refusal of the defendant to grant the claimant his request for delay of his transfer to Lagos, the claimant the claimant had no choice than to move to Lagos. Vide exhibit CW1I, the claimant applied for transfer fare in the sum of N50,000.00 for his transportation to Lagos to resume duty as per exhibit CW1D. The claimant tendered exhibit CW1Q as evidence of his trip to Lagos. 59. The defendant averred that the claimant misrepresented the claim of N50,000.00 which he collected from cashier to travel to Lagos, because according to the defendant on 15/8/17 the claimant was given ten days to resign and on 25/8/17 his employment was terminated. 60. In law if an employer gives employee time to resign the employee has choice either to treat the contract of service as continuing and continues with his employment or decide to go by the directive. In the case at hand the claimant did not succumbed to the deadline given to him to resign from his employment. Rather it was the defendant that exercised its unfettered right to determined services of its employer and vide exhibit CW1O did terminate claimant’s employment. In the circumstances I do not see how collection N50,000.00 will be termed misrepresentation. As at the time the claimant applied for the transport money he was still in service his contract was not determined as at then his contract was determined on 25/8/17. It is also surprising that the defendant did not call the cashier who issues the money to testify, the failure to call cashier is fatal. All the evidence given by the two witnesses called by the defendant is hearsay as it regards the issue of misrepresentation and all what transpired between the claimant and the cashier. Surprisingly however, there is no claim on the entitlement for transfer in the absence of claim to that effect all the evidence given goes to no issue. 61. Having determined the claim of the claimant. I now turn to determine the defendant’s counter claim. Which is contained in the statement of defence dated 9/11/2017, as follows:- 1. A declaration that the action of the claimant/defendant to the counter claim is defamatory in law. 2. A declaration that the insult, assault and embarrassment meted on the counter-claimant can only be estimated but not quantified in monetary terms. 3. The sum of N100,000,000.00 only as general damages. 4. The sum of N4-5 Million as cost of litigation. 5. 10% interest post judgment interest on the sum awarded. 62. As for the merit of the counterclaim, the pleadings of the defendant as relates to the counterclaim can be found in the statement of defence. In the pleadings, the defendant averred that the claimant summoned the defendant’s chairman, Rev. Dr. Victor Mbaisi, the internal Auditor, Mr. Denis Makeri (who testified as DW1), Executive Director, Miss Chidinma Mbanisi and the defendant’s consultant Pastor Ernest Chukwuekem that he want to see them in the defendant Chairman’s office and began to rain insult on the defendant’s Chairman to the surprise of everyone. It was averred that some of the abusive words used was the threat that the defendant’s chairman was not a fair man, and that the claimant has voice recordings of all their conversations and that if he is not given the sum of N50,000,000.00 he will release the recording and publish it to the outside world and that he has enough evidence to put the defendant into trouble. 63. The defendant/counter claimant relied on the evidence of DW1 and DW2 in proof of the counter claim. 64. It is to be remembered that a counter claim is a separate and independent suit of its own. Therefore, just as the Claimant has the burden of proving his case to be entitled to a grant of same, the Defendant/Counter claimant also must adduce sufficient, cogent and credible admissible evidence in support of its counter claim. See UAC (Nigeria) Plc. v. Eunice Akinyele (2012) LPELR-8015 (CA). 65. It appears the defendant/counter claimant is relying heavily on the oral testimony of DW1 and DW2, in proof of the counter/claim. However, the parole evidence given by the two witnesses is respect of the abusive words used by the claimant to threatened the Chairman of the defendant/counter claimant to release N50,000,000.00 to him or he will divulge their recorded conversation goes to show that the claimant never rain abuse or threatened to release record of hs conversation with the defendant in this case. It must be pointed out here that the defendant and the chairman of the defendant are two different legal personalities. There is no doubt that the parole evidence of the two witnesses for the defendant/counter claimant clearly without any equivocation shows that the threat was to the Chairman of the Defendant/counter claimant and not to the defendant/counter claimant. This finding is supported by the fact that the witnesses stated that the claimant threatened to release conversations which he had with the chairman. Therefore, it is doubtful if this evidence can ground grant of claim for defamation in favour of the defendant when the actual person threatened who had conversation with the claimant is not a party to this case. 66. For a party to succeed in his claim he must prove his case with credible and compelling evidence. The defendant in the counter claim in relying on threat to its chairman cannot succeed, more particularly when it has not been established the defendant/counter claimant and the chairman are one and same thing. It is my view that the evidence before the court does not established any defamation.. In other words the there is no evidence to show that claimant defamed the defendant to entitled the defendant to the grant of the counter claim on defamation. I so hold. 67. The two witnesses called by the defendant/counter claimant have stated that due to the defamation of the defendant it has lost most of its clients/customers. This is a mere assertion as there is no evidence record to establish same. As it is, the counterclaim remains unproved and so is hereby dismissed. 68. For the avoidance, the defendant’s counterclaim fails and is thereby dismissed; while the claimant’s case succeeds but only in terms of the following orders: a. The claimant failed to prove dismissal from service, therefore relief ‘a’ is hereby refused. b. The claimant has proved entitlement to sum of N2,800,000.00 (Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being his entitlement for termination of his employment by the defendant. c. The defendant shall pay to the claimant the said sum of N2,800,000.00 (Two Million Eight Hundred Thousand Naira). d. The claimant has also proved his entitlement to transfer allowance to Lagos. The defendant shall pay the claimant his N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) transfer allowance. e. The Reliefs c and have not been proved same are hereby dismissed. f. The claimant is entitled to cost assess at N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira) only payable by the defendant to the claimant. g. All sums payable including cost are to be paid within 21 days of this judgment; failing which they shall attract interest at the rate of 10% per annum until fully paid. 69. Judgment is entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESENTATION: Festus Akpoghalinu, Esq; for the Defendants, appearing with C. Egbochiem, Esq;