Download PDF
JUDGMENT 1. The claimant approached this Court via general form of complaint dated and filed on 11/05/2018. However, pursuant to the Ruling of this Honourable Court on the 10/12/2018, based on the defendant’s preliminary objection; the claimant filed an amended complaint dated 16/01/2019. 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 the trial. The claimant vide this action is seeking for the following reliefs;- A. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the claimant’s employment vide oral communication to the claimant by the Defendant on the 8th day of February, 2018 without notice is unlawful, wrongful, null and void and of no effect. B. A DECLARATION that the continuous detention of the claimant’s original educational certificates when the Defendant had terminated the employment of the claimant‘s amount to detinue against the Defendant. C. A DECLARATION that the termination of the claimant’s employment based on the unfounded allegation of embezzlement of money by the Defendant against the Claimant amounts to breach of the Claimant’s constitutional right to fair hearing. D. A DECLARATION that the claimant is entitled to all his unpaid salaries and allowances being withheld by the Defendant from the month of June, 2017 till the month of February, 2018, being a total sum of N605,000.00. E. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant to release to the Claimant his original educational certificates, namely; Bachelor of Science in Mass Communication, Certificate obtained from the Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, National Youth Service Corps Certificate, and The West African Examination Council, (WAEC) Certificate and Primary School Leaving Certificate obtained from the Enugu State Ministry of education. F. N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) only general damages for wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment. G. N10, 000,000 (Ten Million Naira) only general damages for wrongful detention of the Claimant’s educational certificates. H. N650,000 (Six Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being the Claimant’s accrued salary and allowances from June, 2017 to February, 2018. I. N150,000.00 (One Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) only cost of litigation. 2. The Defendants with the leave of court granted on 5/11/2018 entered a conditional appearance on the 24/05/2018 and filed amended statement of defence and counter claim on 30/01/2019 which was accompanied by a written statement on Oath, Defendant’s list of witnesses, Defendant’s list of documents, photocopies of document to be relied on at the trial. 3. The Defendant/Counter Claimant claims against the claimant as follows; 1. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the claimant to immediately reconcile his outstanding debt account and pay to the defendants the sum of N890,000.00 being cost of stock supplied to him which he could not give account for. 2. The sum of N750,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) being cost of Solicitors professional fees. 4. The claimant filed reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence and a defence to the Defendant’s counter claim dated and filed 04/02/2018. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT 5. The Claimant opened his case on 14/02/2019 wherein he testified as CL. In the course of giving his evidence in chief, 12 documents were sought to be tendered in evidence. The documents admitted into evidence and marked as Exhibits includes; EXHIBITS CLA1-3- A photocopy of Offer of employment dated 1/9/15, EXHIBIT B1-2- A photocopy of letter addressed to GM Sam Sunny Pharmacy LTD dated 13/2/18, EXHIBIT C1-2- The document on letterhead of OS Omogbai & Co. dated 22/2/18, EXHIBIT D- Letter of employment dated 15/2/18. The claimant also adopted his witness statement on Oath as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case. 6. 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 company vide EXHIBIT CLA1-3 and that in the course of documentation the Defendant demanded that the claimant should submits the original of his educational and NYSC certificate which he complied with. 7. It is also the testimony of the Claimant that despite his determination of surpassing his targets the defendant continued to under supply him and then sometime in 2017 brought in a new sales representative, Mr. Amadi Okeke who took most of his customers through unhealthy competition. That the said Mr. Amadi took over his customer base with the knowledge and encouragement of the defendant. 8. Claimant further testified that on 30th September, 2017 he was suspended by the defendant for 2 months and at the end of the suspension the defendant failed to allow him resume his normal course of work and went ahead to terminate his employment without statutory notice. 9. CL testified that after the termination he demanded for his original certificates only to be marched out of defendant’s premises. Claimant further testified that upon his employment been terminated he instructed his counsel to write a letter to the Defendant demanding his original certificates and unpaid allowances and entitlements, only to receive a letter from the Defendant’s counsel stating that he embezzled N890,000.00 belonging to the Defendant. 10. CL testified that after his termination he has been offered employment by some organizations but he could not accept the offers as he cannot provide his original certificates for sighting as demanded by his prospective employer. 11. Claimant further denies in his reply to the Defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim that his educational certificates are not held by the defendant as collateral to guarantee his employment, but wrongfully detained by the Defendant, and that he did not steal nor embezzle the sum of N890, 880.00 or any money at all from the Defendant. 12. The Claimant is praying the Court to grant his reliefs as stated on his complaint and also vehemently denies the counter claim of the Defendant. 13. Under cross-examination, CL confirmed that he was employed as a medical sales representative to cover Abuja and that his condition of engagement is sales representative and he is given products to sell for a price and he pays himself N40,000 and that his evidence of guarantors are with the defendants. He stated that on 30/9/15 he wrote a letter to the company submitting his credentials and 2 guarantors to the Company. He further testified that he submitted his credentials as his guarantor as Mr. Olu dictated the letter to him and he wrote it in his handwriting. He further stated that the qualification for a guarantor is for him to reside in Lagos and to own landed property. He testified that the evidence is with the defendant. He further testified that it was not stated in his letter of engagement that he cannot appoint another representative in Abuja and the defendant stopped supplying goods to him since July 2017 and he was not aware of the reason why the stoppage. He testified that he was queried and in his response he stated that the price of fuel had been increased and he expected his pay to be increased. He testified that after his response to the query he was suspended because of what he discovered that the distributor was selling expired drugs. He testified that as per EXHIBIT A1-2 he was not given notice and he was given query and suspended. He testified that he did not freely submit his documents. He further stated that the defendants can pay him for the period that he did not work and no goods supplied. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 14. On 14/05/2019, one Mr. Oladimeji Kabiru Abiodun, the Business Development Manager testified for the Defendant as DW. DW adopted his witness statement on Oath deposed to and tendered 8 documents as exhibits, however 7 out of the 8 documents tendered in evidence were admitted in evidence by the court while 1 document was rejected and accordingly marked tendered and rejected. The documents admitted in evidence were marked as exhibit A1-4, the amended witness statement on oath of DW sworn on 30/1/19, exhibit B1-2 offer of appointment dated 1/9/15 addressed to Mbah Chibueze, exhibit C1-2- Response to query dated 2/2/17, exhibit D, Letter of suspension dated 20/9/17, exhibit E1-2- Photocopy of demand for payment of outstanding salaries dated 13/2/18, exhibit F1-2- Letter on letter headed paper of O.S. OMAGBAI & CO. dated 22/2/18, exhibit G- Official receipt dated 16/7/18 in the sum of N750,000, exhibit H, Handwritten letter dated 30/9/15 addressed to Manager of the defendant. DW adopted his witness statement on oath as his testimony in the case. 15. The case of the Defendant is that the Claimant was given employment with the Defendant but contrary to the claim of the claimant he woefully failed to meet his sales target as most of the goods supplied to him were returned as shown in the sales chart. Furthermore the defendant avers that it was not aware of any sales representative taking over the market from the claimant and that stoppage of supply of goods was as a result of claimant’s inability to pay his debt of N890,000 he admitted owing in his response to query dated 2/2/2017. And that the suspension and subsequent termination of the claimant was due to his refusal to pay the debt owed to the defendants. 16. The defendant further stated that the claimant was availed adequate notice as stipulated in his letter of appointment and that the claimant was not compelled to submit his original certificates to the defendant, rather he submitted it willingly as collateral to guarantee his employment. DW urged the Court to strike out the case of claimant and grant the Defendant’s Counter claims. 17. The Defendant/Counter- Claimant claim against the claimant as follows; 1. AN ORDER of the Honourable Court directing the claimant to immediately reconcile his outstanding debt account and pay to the defendants the sum of N890,000.00 being cost of stock supplied to him which he could not give account for. 2. The sum of N750,000.00 (Seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira only) being cost of Solicitors professional fees. 18. Under cross examination Mr. Oladimeji Kabiru Abiodun testified that he is the Business Development Manager of the Defendant and had been employed since October, 2013 and that his highest qualification is BSC HONS Pharmacology. He testified that he was not in charge of the account but sales representative and sales. He further testified that the accountant recruits sales representative on his approval and that the accountant’s name is Ifeyinwa popularly called Ify and that she keeps account of the defendant. He further testified that claimant stole or mismanaged defendants funds, the amount is N890,000 and that it was in the month of September 2018 that he was informed about the theft. He further testified that he was not the maker of EXHIBIT H and that it was not his writing but that he signed it. He further stated that he thinks the Claimant is aware that his guarantors are not qualified and that he was notified by the withdrawal of claimant’s official car. DW1 also testified that the matter was reported to the Police in 2017. He further stated that he was at the meeting of 8/2/18 where the claimant demanded for his salary and on that day he did not demand for his certificate and that the purpose of his trip to Lagos was to give the defendants his plan to repay the money (debt). DW1 further testified that he could not remember Amadi Okeke and he was not the defendant’s staff. He stated that Amadi Okeke was not in Abuja selling drug for the defendant but they were informed that he was selling expired drugs. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT. 19. R. Y. Ashiru, Esq; counsel for the defendant in the final written address dated 7/6/19 and filed on 10/6/19, formulated five issues for determination. They are:- 1. Whether the oral termination of the appointment of the claimant was wrongful to entitle him to the reliefs sought in his complaint? 2. Whether the Defendant/Counter Claimant is detaining the original certificates of the Claimant to entitled him general and special damages. 3. Whether the Claimant’s rendered any services to the Defendant/ Counter Claimant in the months of June 2017 to February, 2018 to entitle him to accrued salary in the sum of N650, 000.00 during the period? 4. Whether the Claimant is indebted to the Defendant/ Counter Claimant as claimed in his counter claim? 5. Whether the Defendant/ Counter claimant has incurred necessary cost of his solicitor professional fee? 20. In arguing issue 1; Whether the oral termination of the appointment of the claimant was wrongful to entitle him to the reliefs sought in his complaint? Counsel argued that the position of the law was that when an employee complains that his employment has been wrongfully terminated, he has the onus, first to place before the Court the terms of the contract of employment and secondly, to prove in what manner the said terms were breached by the employer. See KATTO V CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA (1999) 5 S.C. (PT ii) 21. Counsel further argued that EXHIBIT A1-2 and C1-2 did not make provision for the mode of termination of the contract between parties. Counsel therefore submitted that they would have recourse to how the court has interpreted such contract in deciding the rights of parties. 21. Counsel further argued that with the query issued to him the claimant was given fair hearing before his appointment was terminated, counsel relied on the case of EZE V SPRING BANK PLC (2011) 12S.C. (PT1) AT PAGE 193. Counsel submitted that claimant was given fair hearing before his termination and that his termination was rightful. 22. In arguing issue 2; whether the Defendant/Counter- Claimant is detaining the original certificates of the Claimant to entitled him general and special damages. Counsel contended that the defendant is not detaining the original certificates of the Claimant; rather the claimant deposited them as collateral to secure his appointment. 23. Counsel further argued that despite claimant’s testimony that he wasn’t indebted to the defendant, he unequivocally admitted his indebtedness to the Defendant/Counter- Claimant and it is the submission of counsel for the defendant that facts admitted need no further proof and also having submitted credentials as collateral, the Defendant/Counter- claimant is holding on to same pending when he pays back his debt. See EXHIBIT H and the case of JULIUS BERGER LIMITED V OMOGOLU (2001) 6 S.C 185 24. Counsel submitted that the original credentials of the claimant are not detained for unjust cause rather they are to enable the Defendant/Counter- Claimant recover the debts admitted by the claimant. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue no 2 in the Defendant/counter-claimant’s favour. 25. In arguing issue 3; Whether the Claimant’s rendered any services to the Defendant/ Counter Claimant in the months of June 2017 to February, 2018 to entitle him to accrued salary in the sum of N650,000.00 during the period? Counsel argued that the claimant is not entitled to any accrued salary in the sum of N650, 000 from June 2017 to February, 2018 as his appointment was lawfully and validly terminated and he never rendered any services to the Defendant during the period to entitle him to remuneration. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in the Defendant/counter-claimant’s favour as by the averment of the claimant he was not supplied goods from June 2017 to February, 2018 and therefore he cannot be entitled to wages. 26. In arguing issue 4; Whether the Claimant is indebted to the Defendant/ Counter-Claimant as claimed in his counter claim? Counsel argued that by the claimant’s own admission in EXHIBIT B1-2 admitted his indebtedness to the Defendant/Counter-claimant and is therefore liable to account for the goods supplied to him that he sold, failed and refused and neglected to account for. 27. In arguing issue No. 5; Whether the Defendant/ Counter claimant has incurred necessary cost of his solicitor professional fee? Counsel submitted that Order 55 Rules 1 and5 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2017 provides that the cost of every proceeding in the court shall be at the discretion of the court as regards the person by whom they are to be paid. Counsel urged the court to award cost in favour of the Defendant/ Counter claimant being the expense the Claimant had made him to incur in the course of prosecuting the suit. 28. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the claimant and grant the claims of the counter claimant including the claim of solicitor’s professional fees. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT. 29. The Claimant through his counsel J.U Idoko; Esq; adopted the final written address dated 8/7/19 and filed on 11/7/2019. In the final written address four issues were submitted for resolution. They are:- 1. Whether the termination of Claimant’s employment without notice was not illegal and unlawful and not deserving damages. 2. Whether the claimant is not entitled to his salaries, and allowances for the period under which the Defendant suspended him. 3. Whether the refusal of the Defendant to return to the Claimant his original educational certificates does not amount to detinue, deserving compensation. 4. Whether the Defendant/ Counter Claimant has proved the allegation of theft/ embezzlement against the claimant to sustain its counter claim. 30. In arguing issue one; Whether the termination of Claimant’s employment without notice was not illegal and unlawful and not deserving damages. Counsel argued that it is trite law for employer must give notice before terminating the employment of the employee, on this contention counsel relied on the case of DE STEMPEL V DUNKELS (1938) 1 ALL ER 238, counsel also relied on section 11 of the Labour Act 1974 (LFN) which provides for the manner and length of notice to be given to an employee where no notice is provided in the terms of employment. Counsel submitted while relying on the cited authorities that the termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant/counter claimant is null and void and hence claimant is entitled to compensation. 31. In arguing issue 2; Whether the claimant is not entitled to his salaries, and allowances for the period under which the Defendant suspended him. Counsel argued that suspension means to halt any way but certainly not to bring to an end or terminate. On this submission counsel relied on the case of AKINYAJU V UNILORIN (2005)7 NWLR (PT 927) 87. It is contended by counsel that during the period of claimant’s suspension his contract of employment still subsists and he is therefore entitled to all his salaries and entitlements. Counsel urged the court to resolve issue 2 in Claimant’s favour. 32. In arguing issue 3; Whether the refusal of the Defendant to return to the Claimant his original educational certificates does not amount to detinue, deserving compensation. Counsel argued that the defendant did not deny that they detained the claimant’s original certificates which tantamount to detinue, the element of which is that the Defendant is wrongfully detaining the goods or a chattel of the claimant. To support his contention counsel placed reliance on the case of LUFTHANZA GERMAN AIRLINES V ROBERT ODIASE (2006) 7 NWLR (PT.978) 34 AT 78. Counsel further submitted that failure to return the claimant’s certificates has caused him hardship as he was unable to obtain another employment due to his inability to produce his original educational certificates required for sighting by the offeror. 33. In arguing issue 4; Whether the Defendant/ Counter- Claimant has proved the allegation of theft/ embezzlement against the claimant to sustain its counter claims. Counsel argued that DW testimony that the accountant had informed him that the claimant had stolen N890,880.00 was hearsay which the court ought not to rely on. Counsel relied on the case of AJADI V AJIBOLA (2004) ALL FWLR (PT220) 1273, 16 NWLR (898) 91 to reiterate the court’s position when it relates to hearsay evidence and when it has no evidential value. Counsel submitted that the Defendant/counter-claimant has failed to prove the allegation of theft/ embezzlement and therefore cannot sustain its counter claim, Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Defendant’s counter-claim in its entirety and grant all the reliefs sought by the claimant including the cost of the present action in the interest of Justice. 34. Counsel urged the Court to resolve both issues in the affirmative and grant all the reliefs of the claimant as prayed. COURT’S DECISION 35. I have meticulously considered all the processes filed in this suit and the final written addresses filed by the counsel for both sides. I have also attentively listened to oral submissions canvassed by counsel in support of their respective position in respect of the claim and counter-claim under consideration. 36. From the pleadings and evidence so far adduced before the court, the issues calling for resolution are: 1. Whether having regards to the pleadings and evidence adduced in the course of the trial, the claimant is entitled to the reliefs being sought from this court. 2. Whether the Defendant has proved its counterclaim to be entitled to same. RESOLUTON OF ISSUE ONE: 37. The grouse of the claimant against the defendant is that the oral termination of his employment by the defendant without giving him notice is unlawful, wrongful, null and void and of no effect whatsoever. While for the defendant the oral termination of the claimant’s employment was proper and adequate notice was given to the claimant as a result of the query issued to the claimant and subsequent suspension from duty and then followed by the termination of appointment. 38. In law a party that approaches the Court for determination of his claim has the burden of proving the entitlement to the reliefs sought. Both the case law and the statute support this proposition. See Chairman, EFCC & Anor. v. Littlechild & Anor (2015) LPELR-25199 (CA) & Section 131(1) & (2), Evidence Act, 2011. Except in relation to express and unambiguous admission, the burden of proof remains on he who asserts. The reliefs sought by the Claimant are 9. For the claimant to succeed in proof of his 9 reliefs he must lead both credible and admissible evidence in support of each of reliefs being sought. The first relief sought is for a declaration that the termination of the Claimant employment orally by the defendant on the 8/2/18 without notice is unlawful, wrongful, null and void and of no effect. 39. The law is trite that in an action for wrongful or unlawful termination of employment, the Claimant must place before the Court his contract of employment containing the terms and conditions of engagement. See Anifowoshe v. Wema Bank Plc (2015) LPELR-24811 (CA). The Claimant must thereafter prove to the Court what makes the termination of employment unlawful or wrongful within the confines of the applicable terms and conditions. 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 A1-2, which is offer of employment issued to him by the defendant. Exhibit A1-2 which is a photocopy of exhibit B1-2, read:- Dear Mr. Mbah chibueze, OFFER OF APPOINTMENT We refer to your application for employment dated 10th August 2015 and subsequent interview on the 27th August 2015 and hereby inform you that the management of Sam Sunny Pharmacy Limited has offered you employment as a sale Representative effective from 1st September 2015 on the Terms and conditions stipulated below:- Location Abuja Salary N40,000 Float N15,000 Target N1,5000,000 During the period of Probation (3) Months, you are expected to make returns of One Million, Five Hundred thousand Naira (N1,500,000) monthly as your target and you are also expected to pay yourself the stipulated salary/allowance. You are required to present to the company the particulars of two guarantors one of them must be a resident in Lagos state. Each guarantor must provide two passport photographs, utility bill, photocopy of driver’s license/National Id cards/Data passage of international passport & photocopy of landed property. Condition and service to be reviewed after 3 months of satisfactory performance. You are placed on three months’ probation during which your performance will be closely monitored by the management to ascertain your suitability and efficiency on the job. You are expected to cover your work environment effectively and efficiently. You are expected to accept or reject this offer of employment within one working day. In case of acceptance, you should sign both copies of this letter; retain one copy and send back one copy to Sam Sunny Pharmacy limited. In case of reject, kindly return both copies to Sam Sunny Pharmacy limited. Once again we congratulate you and looking forward to working cordially with you. Yours sincerely Sam Sunny Pharmacy ltd. SGN Managing Director. 40. The content of exhibits CWA1-2 and CWB1-2, reproduced above represent the terms and conditions of employment agreed by the parties in this suit. The content of exhibits CWA1-2 and CWB1-2, clearly revealed contract of service that is termed master and servant relationship. 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 1(973) 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. 41. A careful perusal of the content of exhibits A1-2 and B1-2, the contract of service in this case will show that the provisions of section 7 of the labour Act that requires contract of employment to be evidenced in writing has not fully been complied with in this case. It is apparent that the requirement of appropriate period of notice to be given by the party wishing to terminate the contract is conspicuously missing from the terms and conditions contained in exhibits CWA1-2 and CWB1-2. In fact there were no provisions made on how to end the relationship between the parties as per the terms and condition of the contract of service. The content of a contract of employment like any other contract would consist essentially of the terms and condition respecting it. To a large extent this will depend on the intention of the parties though certainty sometimes it does go beyond the intentions. But, the court must confine itself on the ascertained terms of the contract of service between the parties whatever they are for it is that contract that provides for their rights and obligations. See UDEMAH V NIGERIA COAL CORPORATION (1991) 3 NWLR (PT.180) 477, EJITAGBA V FHMB (1995) 2 NWLR (PT.376) 189. In CALABAR CEMENT CO LTD V DANIEL (1991) 4 NWLR (PT.188) 750, the Court of Appeal observed that in a contract of service, parties are bound by the terms of the contract. Where the terms are clear and unambiguous the parties cannot move out of them in search of more favourable terms or greener pastures. However, where the terms of contracts are not clear and ambiguous, a court of law can move out of them and invoke the general rules of contract applicable of the contract of service. 42. This means that in the absence of comprehensive terms and conditions of service, court is allowed to resort to statutory provisions and implied terms in the course of consideration of a given contract of service in determination of the rights of the parties before it. In AMODU V AMODE (1990) 5 NWLR (PT.150) 356, the court stated that in the construction of contract of employment, apart from any relevant statutory provisions, any question as to duration of the employment, its terminality by notice, the length of the notice or the time at which notice to determine it may be given, will depend on the intention of the parties, either revealed in the express or implied terms of their contract or to be inferred from all the surrounding circumstances. Where there are express terms on those issues, the problem will be one of construction. In the absence of express terms, the court has to fall back on the implied terms of the contract going by the intention of the parties on it and the surrounding circumstances. 43. In view of the foregoing exposition of the law on this subject, the relationship of the parties in this suit is governed by the express or terms agreed or as contained in the letter of appointment, implied terms or terms as stipulated in the statute. 44. The express terms are the terms and conditions contained in the letter of employment which govern the employment of the claimant. While implied terms are terms assumed to be part and parcel of the contract agreement though not expressly stated, they appeared to be the intention of the parties. They are terms considered very necessary for the actual efficacy of the agreement itself. Implied terms can be derived from statue, custom or the court where such will achieve the ultimate result intended by the parties. 45. The parties in this case seem to have agreed that the claimant’s appointment was orally terminated on 8/2/18 at the end of his meeting with the defendant. However, from the facts in the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced in support does not support the assertion that the claimant’s appointment with the defendant was terminated on 8/2/18. The reason being that the claimant was categorical in his evidence before the court that he was employed by the defendant as a sales representative vides exhibits A1-2 and B1-2, respectively. The claimant’s appointment took effect in September 2015, when he started work with the claimant. That sometime in January, 2017, the claimant was issued with a query by the defendant to explain or account for the proceeds of sales made for the year 2016. The claimant’s replied the query was tendered and admitted in evidence as exhibit DWC1-2, wherein he admitted being indebted to the defendant. He also admitted not making payment to the defendant for the sales. The claimant though has alluded to making not much profit, he never the less did not remit to the defendant money for the sales which he made. The claimant has given reasons for not remitting money to the defendant to include indebtedness of his three customers and that the funds at his hand not being enough to be paid to the defendant. The claimant also stated that part of the challenges he faced was the steep competition he faced from a sales representative of the claimant who was selling the product at a lesser amount. There is also the inadequacy of salary and allowance being paid to the claimant. The claimant has also claimed to have made about six million naira as his annual sales contribution to the defendant. 46. The defendant after appraisal of the claimant’s response in exhibit DWC1-2, suspended the claimant for a period of two months. However, at the end of the suspension on 30/11/17, the defendant refused to allow the claimant to resume his work. The claimant alleged that he was informed orally of his termination by the defendant on 8/2/17, at a meeting in Lagos which he requested for. But, the defendant in his response avers that the meeting was at the instance of the defendant and the defendant shoulders the transportation of the claimant to Lagos for the meeting. 47. The claimant insisted that the oral termination of his employment without notice and fair hearing is null and void and of no effect whatsoever. The defendant on the other hand maintained that the termination of claimant’s employment was proper and the claimant having been queried, answered to the query and having been suspended due to unsatisfactory response and refusal to reconcile his account and pay for the drugs supplied to him was dully terminated and accorded fair hearing and reasonable notice of termination. 48. Termination of appointment involves act or circumstances that bring to an end the contract of employment in other words extinguishing the rights and obligations created by the contract. Termination of appointment can be by way of notice, lapse of time, operation of law, by subsequent legal events, or legal impossibility, by subsequent agreement or by repudiation. 49. Though termination by giving notice is more usual way in which contract of service is terminated, the method is usually provided for in the terms and conditions of service. In the case at hand the defendant’s position is that it adopted the method adopted to terminate claimant’s employment because the contract of service exhibits CWA1-2 and CWB1-2, has not provided for giving of notice. 50. The concept of termination give either party to contract of service absolute right to determine and end the contract of service at any time by giving the appropriate notice to the other party or making payment in lieu of notice. The freedom of determination given to the parties by the law was routed in the philosophy that no parson shall be compelled to any labour. Likewise no employee shall be foisted on an employer. It is to be noted that it is in respect of contract of service of master and servant that this rule operate, that an employee cannot compel his employer to retain him no matter how desirable that may be on humanitarian or other grounds. In the same vein, an employer cannot compel an employee to remain in his service no matter how indispensable his services may be to the employer. See STEYR NIG. LTD V GADZMA The court cannot force an unwilling employer to retain an employee to work. The right to determine by notice is available and can be exercised by both parties and when they do so no reason need be given. See CALABAR CEMENT CO. LTD V DANIELS SUPRA. 51. All that the party seeking to terminate needs to do is to give adequate notice as prescribed under the contract or so deemed and implied by law and do not have to justify his action because he is not guilty of breach but rather exercising a right. Thus, termination could be for any reason or for no reason at all, once the requisite notice or payment in lieu is made. The motive which compels the employer or employee to terminate a contract by notice, is inconsequential in any consideration as to the legality or otherwise of the termination. 52. In DAODU V UBA PLC SUPRA, the court agreed that the employer can bring the appointment of his employee to an end for any reason or for no reason at all, so long as he acts within the terms of the employment, his motive is irrelevant. If a reason given for the termination, such reason must fall within the terms of the contract of employment. The law is well settled that once employer gives a reason for terminating or dismissing an employee, the burden lies with him to justify the said reason. See KUNLE OSISANYA V AFRIBANK NIGERIA PLC 2007 ALL FWLR PART360 1480SC, 2007 12 SC 317, SPDC LTD V OLARENWAJU 2008 LPELR-046SC, 2008 12 SC PTIII 27, ANGEL SHIPPING DYEING LTD V AJAH 2000 13 NWLR PT685 551. 53. Where no reason is given the employer is not bound to give evidence as to any reason for the termination. In BEN CHUKWUMAH V SHELL (1993) 4 NWLR (Pt.289) 512, the apex court stated clearly that in termination cases, the circumstances in which the employment was terminated, such reasons like malice, caprice, bad faith, the injured feelings of the plaintiff or the inconveniences a party may have suffered are irrelevant and cannot be taken into consideration so long as the termination is in accordance with the terms of the contract. And in WEJIN V ASHAKA CEMENT CO LTD (1991) 8 NWLR (P.211) 608 the court of appeal held that power to be an absolute one in that where a contract has been properly terminated, intention and motive become both irrelevant. See also NWAUBANI V GOLDEN GUINEA BREWERIES (1995) 6 NWLR (PT.400) 184, OLANIYAN V UNIVERSITY OF LAGOS SUPRA. 54. It is to be noted termination by notice means giving a formal notice, i.e formal information by one party to the other that the contract is to be brought to an end at a stipulated date. 55. Though the defendant has contended that reasonable or more than adequate notice has been given for termination of the claimant’s employment, there was no such notice tendered before the court. The issuance of query and its response as contained in exhibit DWC1-2, and the subsequent suspension of the claimant which the defendant seems to be relying as notice of termination were not in actual sense notice of termination. For a notice to be valid time must be ascertained or ascertainable. If notice notifies an employee of intention to terminate employment at some future date but neither states the date nor renders it ascertainable, then no valid notice to terminate has been given. A notice would be ineffective to determine the contract unless scrupulous compliance is observed of specifying time i.e period and effective date of termination. 56. The law is long settled that where an employee is terminated without notice or adequate notice as required by the agreement of the parties or statute, the employment stands terminated wrongfully. Where termination is found to be wrongful that only renders the defendant liable in damages. damages. See IMOLOAME V WAEC SPURA, UTC V NWOKORULU SUPRA, KWARA INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD V GARUBA (2000) 10 NWLR (PT.674) 25. 57. The defendant in the case at hand has argued that the contract of employment exhibit A1-2 and B1-2, did not make provision for giving notice. And in any event the claimant was given query wherein he admitted being indebted to the claimant for the sales made for year 2016 and failing to pay the money to the defendant. 58. I have carefully studied exhibit DWC1-2, the answer to the query issued to the claimant on non-payment of money to the claimant I have also scrutinized exhibit D letter of suspension and the claimant’s averments in paragraphs 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the amended statement of facts, it can be inferred without any equivocation that the claimant’s employment was terminated on 30/11/17 when after serving two months suspension, he requested to resume work but was not allowed to resume by the defendant. The reasons for termination can be gathered from exhibit DWC1-2 and D, which are response to query and letter of suspension. 59. Having regard to the admission made by the claimant in exhibit DWC1-2, that he is indebted to the claimant and that he made not much profit. The claimant has every justification to terminate the claimant’s employment after query and suspension. The conduct of the claimant in refusing to pay the claimant for sales made amount to gross misconduct which attract summary removal from employment. In the circumstance of this case the termination of claimant’s employment is justified. In fact the claimant was lucky that the claimant was lenient on him by not dismissing him summarily. 60. The claimant has made effort to justify his non-payment of the money to defendant, which he attributed to lack of encouragement from defendant due to non-supply of goods worth target set. There is no proof of this assertion because the claimant has not stated the quantity of goods received from the claimant and their worth. The claim that the claimant brought a new representative one Mr. Amadi Okeke to Abuja who took over most of the claimant’s customer through unhealthy competition could not be established as the said Mr. Amadi Okeke was according to the defendant not their employee like the claimant. This claim can find support in the statement of of Mr. Amadi Okeke to the Police on 25/10/17 which the claimant frontloaded but failed and neglected to tender same in evidence despite stating that the said statement will be relied upon at the trial. 61. In view of the foregoing, issue one is resolved in favour of the defendant against the claimant the claimant is not entitled to relief A. 62. Relief B is for declaration that the continued detention of the claimant’s original educational certificates when the defendant had terminated the employment of the claimant’s amount to detinue against the defendant. In proof of this relief the claimant has averred in paragraph 5 that in the course of documentation after the acceptance of the employment, the defendant demanded of the claimant his original educational certificates which the claimant gave to the defendant. The said educational certificates are Bachelor of Science in Mass Communication Certificate, obtained from Nnamdi Azikiwe University Awka, National Youth Service (NYSC) Certificate and West African Examination Council WAEC Certificate. 63. Vide paragraph 6 of the statement of facts the claimant avers that the claimant provided two (2) guarantors to the defendant. The claimant argued that the refusal of the defendant to release his educational certificates after termination of his employment amount to detinue. 64. The defendant in response stated that the two guarantors provided by the claimant could not meet the requirement of the defendant hence the claimant submitted the originals of his credentials as collateral in place of guarantors. Exhibit H tendered and admitted in evidence was relied upon in proof of this assertion. 65. The requirement for submission of guarantors is made one of the terms and conditions of the contract of service between the parties in this suit. See exhibit B1-2, paragraph 3 of this exhibit read:- a. ‘’You are required to present to the company the particulars of two guarantors one of them must be a resident in Lagos state. Each guarantor must provide two passport photographs, utility bill, photocopy of driver’s license/National ID cards/Data passage of international passport & photocopy of landed property.’’ 66. It is patently clear from paragraph 3 of exhibit B1-2 that the claimant must submit two guarantors. The claimant in paragraph 6 of his statement of facts stated that he had submitted two guarantors to the defendant. However, the defendant is saying the guarantors could not meet the requirement of the defendant thus why the educational certificates of the claimant were submitted by the claimant as guarantor. 67. A careful perusal of exhibit H, will show that the claimant stated that he left his certificates as guarantor and he also stated that ‘’this is just for record purpose’'’. 68. Exhibit CWB1-2 is the contract of service binding on the claimant and in it two guarantors were required and there is no evidence produced to show that the two guarantors required by the contract agreement exhibit B1-2 had been amended to include submission of certificates as part of guarantors. In law parties are bound by the agreement they reach and the court is not allowed to go outside the agreement of the parties to found case for any of the parties. The law is trite that parties are bound by the terms of their engagement. See The West African Examinations Council v. Felix Iwarue Oshionebo (2006) LPELR-7739 (CA). Thus both the Claimant and the Defendant are bound by exhibit CWB1-2, and must comply with its provisions. 69. It is my view that relying on exhibit H cannot help the defendant in that the said document talk of guarantor and at the same time also to serve just as record in view of this ambiguity I reject exhibit H to be a guarantor of the claimant’s employment. The reason being that exhibit CWB1-2 never made certificates to be one of the two guarantors. From the tone of exhibit CWB1-2 the guarantors contemplated by the agreement of the parties to be provided must be human beings. In the circumstances the claimant is entitled to have his certificates returned to him by the defendant upon termination of his employment. The defendant has no justification to continue to withhold the claimant’s certificates. I so hold. 70. Relief D is for declaration that the claimant is entitled to all his unpaid salaries and allowances being withheld by the defendant from the Month of June 2017 till the month of February 2018, being a total sum of N605,000.00. while relief H is for the sum of N650,000.00 (Six Hundred and Fifty thousand Naira) only being the claimants accrued salary and allowances from June 2017 to February 2018. 71. The monetary claim as per reliefs D and H are for the same thing i.e accrued salaries and allowances from June 2017 to February 2018. However, the amount differs in quantum. These reliefs D and H are for sum certain by the Claimant. The reliefs amount to claim for special damages. It is trite law supported by plethora of judicial authorities that special damages require strict proof. See Gurara Securities and Finance Limited v. T.I.C. Limited (1998) LPELR-6420 (CA) following NITEL Ltd & Ors v. Ogunbiyi (1992) 7 NWLR (pt.255) at 543 per Onalaja J.C.A. Aside from Exhibit B1-2, which contained the agreement between the parties together with the applicable terms and conditions of employment, there is no other document tendered by the Claimant in support of his entitlement to these sums of money. It is not clear to me how the Claimant arrived at his claims of different sums of money. It is for the Claimant to adduce convincing and satisfactory evidence in support of these claims. To make the case of the claimant worst he had by his pleading stated that he had been at home without working since June 2017. Then, how can the court grant salaries and allowances for work not done. See OLATUNBOSAN V NISER The claimant has failed to establish his claims on salaries and allowances. I find and hold that entitlement to the sums claimed is not proved. I accordingly refuse and dismiss same. 72. Relief E is for an order compelling the defendant to release to the claimant his original educational certificates. Having held that the claimant having been terminated is entitled to have his educational certificates released to him relief E succeed and is hereby granted. 73. Reliefs F is for damages for wrongful termination of claimant’s employment. Having found and held that the termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendant was not wrongful, null and void, there is no basis to grant this head of claim. The right of an employer to discipline an employee remains preserved. I have no hesitation in refusing this head of claim and I so do. 74. Relief G is for is for N10,000,00.00 as general damages for wrongful detention of the claimant’s certificates. The claimant placed reliance on exhibit D in proof of his entitlement to relief G, however, the offer to the claimant for the position of Head of Bursary Unit of the Glovic Model School does not seems to be realistic for the simple reason that the qualifications of the claimant were not accounting or economic which are the relevant qualifications for such a position. In the circumstances the claimant has not proved relief G due to lack of credible evidence to that effect. The said relief failed and is hereby dismissed. COUNTER CLAIM. 75. The second issue for determination is whether the Defendant has proved its counter claims to be entitled to same or any of them. The counter claim of the Defendant is as follows – 76. An order of this Honourable Court directing the claimant to immediately reconcile his outstanding debt account and pay to the defendant the sum of N890,0800.00 being cost of stock supplied to him which he could not give account. 77. The sum of N750,000.00 (seven Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) being cost of solicitors professional fees. 78. The law is trite 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). 79. It appears the defendant/counter claimant is relying heavily on exhibits C1-2 D and F1-2, to press home the counter claim. Exhibit DWC1-2, is a response to a query issued to the claimant on non-payment money the proceeds of sales of stock supplied to him by the defendant/counter. Though the claimant has admitted non-remittance to the defendant/counter claimant there is no evidence as to the stock supplied to the claimant which he sold. There is also no evidence in the said exhibit of the amount of money to which the claimant admitted to be indebted to the defendant/counter claimant. The admission was not free from ambiguity in the circumstance exhibit DWC1-2 cannot be relied on as proof of indebtedness of the claimant to the tune of the sum of N890,880.00. Therefore, I am of the view that exhibit DWC1-2, is not capable of assisting the defendant/counter claimant in proof of the counter claim before the court. 80. On exhibit D, it is only tendered as proof of suspension of the claimant from the services of the defendant/counter claimant and no more. It is trite law that exhibit tendered for a particular purposes cannot be utilized for another purpose. 81. On exhibit F1-2, this is a letter that was written by the counsel for defendant/counter claimant in response to exhibits CWB1-2 and CWE1-2. It is interesting to note that the money involved in exhibit F1-2, is the sum of N980,000.00 (Nine Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira) while in exhibit DWC1-2 and the amended statement of defence containing the counter claim the money involved is the sum of N890,880.00 (Eight Hundred and Ninety Thousand Eighty hundred and eighty Naira). It is clear to every discerning eyes that the amount of money in the counter claim and the money in exhibit DWF1-2 are totally and directly not the same. This means that since the money involved in exhibit DWF1-2, is higher than the money in the counter claim, the defendant counter claimant cannot rely on the said claim since they are not the same. 82. At the end I find no evidence of the stocks supplied to the claimant to the tune of N890,880.00 which he refused to reconcile. There is total absence of evidence in support of this head of counter claim. Same not having been proved, I refuse and dismiss same accordingly. 83. It is clear to me that on a broad but fundamental perspective, the evidence led in respect of the amounts of N890,880 Is incapable of proving the said claim having regard to the state of the pleading of the defendant/counter claimant, quite apart that it is inadequate and too general. Such evidence must be discountenanced as it goes to no issue: see George v. Dominion Flour Mills Ltd (1963) 1 SCNLR 117, (1963) 1All NLR 71 at 77; National Investment and Properties Co. Ltd v. Thompson Organisation Ltd. (1969) NMLR 99 at 104; Emegokwue v. Okadigbo (1973) 4 SC 113 at 117; Nwawuba v. Enemuo (1989) 1NSCC (Vol. 19) 930 at 940; (1988) 2 NWLR (Pt.78) 581 at 295-296. 84. On claim of N750,000.00 Solicitors fees, the defendant/counter claimant relied on exhibit G which is a receipt issued by O. S. Omogbai & Co. as professional fees to depend the defendant/counter claimant. 85. It has been established that a claim for solicitors professional fees or fees like in this case does not form part of the cause of action that give rise to suit under consideration. In the case at hand the cause of action is on termination of employment period and not on refusal to settle solicitor’s professional fees as charged by the solicitors. 86. It is trite law that a relief which a claimant in an action is entitled to, if established by the evidence, are those reliefs which form part of the claimant's cause of action. From the pleadings, in this case the cause of action is the alleged termination of employment and for the counter claim refusal to reconcile debt. The claim for Solicitors fees for defending the defendant/counter claimant’s action and for prosecuting its counterclaim in respect of its said cause of action in this case does not form part of the claimant’s cause of action or that of the defendant/counter claimant’s cause of action. In GUINNESS NIGERIA PLC vs. NWOKE (2000) 15 NWLR (pt 689) 135 at 159 the Court of Appeal held that a claim for Solicitors fees is outlandish and should not be allowed as it did not arise as a result of damage suffered in the course of any transaction between the parties. Similarly, in NWANJI vs. COASTAL SERVICES LTD (2004) 36 WRN 1 at 14-15, it was held by the Supreme Court that it was improper, unethical and an affront to public policy, to have a litigant pass the burden of costs of an action including his Solicitors fees to his opponent in the suit. Therefore, I think that on the current state of the law, a claim for Solicitors fees, which does not form part of the Claimant's cause of action, is not one that can be granted. See also MICHAEL V. ACCESS BANK (2017) LPELR-, ABURIME V NPA (1978) LPELR-60(SC). 87. From the foregoing, and reasons given in this judgment that I have come to the conclusion that both the claimant and the defendant counter claimant in this suit have all failed to establish their respective clams before the court. There is no merit in the claims as they were clumsily presented. The claim and counter claim are hereby refused and same dismissed. 88. I make no order as to cost. 89. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado Judge. REPRESENTATION: J. U. Idoko, Esq; for the claimant R. Y. Ashiru, Esq; for the defendant