JUDGMENT 1. This judgment was to be delivered on 2/4/2020, but could not be delivered due to lockdown as a result of coronavirus pandemic outbreak. 2. The Claimant approached this Court via a general form of complaint dated 15/01/2018 and filed 26/01/2018. 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. DECLARATION that the purported termination of appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful at law and contrary to the condition of service of the Defendant and therefore null and void and of no legal consequence. b. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the appointment of the Claimant by the Defendant is premature, wrongful at law and contrary to the conditions of service of the Defendant. c. A DECLARATION that the purported termination of the Claimant’s appointment amounts to a breach of contract and negates all agreements reached between Claimant’s union and Defendant and therefore wrongful, null and void. d. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court compelling the Defendant with immediate effect to pay the Claimant his annual leave allowances assessed at the rate of 10% of Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996 which was due from 2007 till December 2016 before the purported termination of appointment. e. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his pension funds 8% of basic salary deducted from 2007 till December 2016 and 12% of the Defendant’s mandatory pension contribution withheld by her since the Claimant period throughout the Claimant’s employment. f. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all his entitlements, gratuity, severance package, all benefits flowing from such termination and all pension funds deducted from the Claimant’s salary from the time of his employment till December 2016 when his appointment was purportedly terminated. g. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant all salaries withheld from January 2017 till the final determination of this suit. IN THE ALTERNATIVE; AN ORDER of this Honourable Court, directing the Defendant to pay all the Claimant’s redundancy benefit to which the Claimant is entitled to. h. AN ORDER of this Honourable Court directing the Defendant to pay to the Claimant thee sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira) only as nominal damages for the severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged him into. i. AND FOR ANY FURTHER ORDERS as this Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstances. 3. After exchange of pleadings, the case went to trial, with the Claimant testifying in proof of his case. While the Defendant called two witness to testify in defence. CASE OF THE CLAIMANT 4. The Claimant opened his case on 14/01/2019 wherein he testified as CL. CL after identifying his witness statement on oath, adopted it as his testimony before the Court in proof of his case. In the course of giving his evidence in chief, seven documents were sought to be tendered in evidence. Five out of the seven documents were admitted in evidence and marked as exhibits CL1-2 (photocopy of contract of employment dated 1/7/14, CLB1-15 (document titled strictly private & confidential), CLC (photocopy of communiqué issued on 17/12/13), CLD (photocopy of communiqué signed on 22/3/16, CLE1-2 (photocopy of letter of retrenchment), CLF (Employee Handbook). While two documents were rejected and they were marked tendered and rejected. 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 Company on 1st of July 2010 as a croupier and was later promoted to the position of a Dealer/Inspector in 2014. CL testified that there has been an on-going tussle between the employees and workers, one of such dispute which arose between the Defendant and Claimant was even mediated upon by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment in which a communiqué was reached between the parties. The Claimant further testified that in 2016 the Defendant notified the Claimant and invited its union members for a collective bargain, and at the said meeting the issue of redundancy was raised. The Claimant stated that when a 2nd meeting came up and the Claimant’s branch union President, General secretary, vice president, Deputy president they proffered solutions and gave conditions for any effective redundancy to take place. CL testified that the Defendant had made frequent deductions and called them pension funds and they were deducted at 8% of Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996.00 and that the Defendant was also mandatorily contributing 12% of the said basic salary per month and that yet all the said sums were not reflected in the pension Managers account and were never remitted. Claimant further testified that he has never been paid his annual leave allowance which is 10% of his basic salary. The Claimant stated that he had reported to work as usual on the 22nd of December 2016 but was denied access to his duty post without explanation. Claimant testified that in view of the abrupt redundancy he reported to the Federal Ministry of Labour and productivity that invited parties for a collective bargain. Claimant testified that the result of the said meeting between the Defendants, the Federal Ministry of Labour and the Union was an agreement by the Defendant to suspend the intended retrenchment. The Claimant testified that the Defendant’s sudden decision to retrench the Claimant came as a surprise. The Claimant stated that in line with the Defendant’s handbook, he had never been issued any form of warning in the past to warrant his termination and that no reason was ever stated for the said termination. The Claimant believes that his termination was merely done out of malice as his termination are against the rules and laws of Nigeria and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and that the action of the Defendant has plunged him into severe hardship and psychological trauma. 6. The Claimant is praying the Court to grant his reliefs as stated on his complaint. 7. Under cross-examination, CL testified that the excuse was redundancy. He testified that his relationship with the Defendant is regulated by exhibit CLA1-2. He testified that he had signed the documents in his office, he further testified that exhibit CLD is agreement between labour and management. He testified that he objected to the redundancy and that he has no formal contribution in setting up the Defendants. He further testified that ARM pension was his pension fund administrator and that not all his entitlements were paid and that is why he decided to come to the court. Claimant testified that from December 2016 he has not done anything. THE CASE OF THE DEFENDANTS 8. The Defendant called one Mr. Hafis Adenekan Olayinka, who testified on 06/03/2019, as DW in the defence of the Defendant. DW after identifying his witness statement on oath adopted same as his testimony in this suit. In the course of the hearing documents were tendered and admitted in evidence they are: Exhibits DWA1-2 (GT Bank Onlice Tranfer Advice, dated 15/8/17), DWB1-3 (CTC of GT Bank On-line Transfer Advice dated 30/1/17), DWC1-3 (Certificate of compliance with section 84 of the Evidence Act) DWC1-2, DWD1-5 (RE: Urgent Request for Statement of Accounts). 9. DW testified that the Claimant was affected by redundancy because the Defendant was unable to meet its obligations based on lack of patronage of its Casino business and also, for lack of patronage the Defendant was forced to shut down 4 (Four) out of its 9 (Nine) Business Tables at the Abuja office and the Claimant was aware of the challenges faced by the Defendant occasioned by lack of patronage of its business and that based on the circumstances the Defendant was unable to meet its obligation to its Landlord as rent was constantly in arrears for lack of patronage. DW further testified that the Defendant proposed a 10% (Ten Per cent) salary cut because of the Economic challenges being encountered by the Defendant but the proposal was rejected by the Claimant. The Claimant insisted on a 5% (Five per cent) deduction which was not sustainable by the Defendant. The Claimant was invited by the Defendant but the Claimant refused to accept his letter of redundancy. However, the Claimant’s entitlements were paid to him through his usual Bankers, Guaranty Trust Bank in the sum of N165, 000.00 (One Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Naira) only being 3 Months Gross Salary. The sum of N45, 000.00 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira) only being for Public holiday payment. DW testified that the Claimant does not deserve any of the reliefs sought as its redundancy policy was not borne out of malice and was carried out in good faith. DW urged the court to reject the Claimant’s suit as it is malicious and vexatious. 10. Under cross examination DW1 testified that exhibit DWB1-3 is evidence of payment and that the Claimant’s leave was paid together with his salary he testified that he joined the Defendants in October, 2008 and that he has been in Lagos. THE SUBMISSION OF THE DEFENDANT. 11. The counsel for the Defendant, John Abah Augustine; Esq. filed final written address of the Defendant on 9/7/2019, and adopted same on the 21/01/2020 as his argument in the matter. Counsel outlined 2 issues for determination by the court; 1. Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim against the Defendant which will entitle the Claimant to the reliefs sought? 2. The effect of a party who fail to adduce reliable and credible evidence to prove his case in Court. 12. In arguing the first issue; Whether the Claimant has successfully proved his claim against the Defendant which will entitle the Claimant to the reliefs sought? Counsel contended that the Claimant relied on Exhibits CL1-2, CLB1-15, CLF, CLD, CLX1-2 and CLC in an attempt at proving his case which was tendered in evidence before this court. Counsel for the Defendant argued that the Claimant failed to adduce any evidence in proving the alleged case of termination of his appointment by the Defendant. Counsel while relying on the case of SMITHKLI NE BEECHAM PLC V. FARMEX LIMITED (2009) ALL FWLR (PT 477) PG 568 PARAG. 9 stated that the position of the law is that where a fact or facts are pleaded and no evidence is led to prove them, no onus shifts to the other party to disprove the fact or facts that have not been established. Counsel submitted, that any pleaded fact that was not proved or supported by evidence is deemed abandoned. 13. Counsel urged the Court to strike out Exhibits CLB1-15- A DOCUMENT TITLED STRICTLY PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL because it was not signed by both parties, therefore does not confer any evidential value to the documents. An unsigned document is worthless. See EDILCO (NIG) LTD V. U. B. A. PLC (2000) FWLR (PT 21) 792 ratio 3. Counsel further argued that based on Exhibit CLD tendered by the Claimant particularly at paragraph 4, the payment of leave allowance was never an-issue as payment was regular and prompt till the date of execution of the Communiqué being the 22nd day of March, 2016 else it will be clearly stated in the Exhibit CLD as part of the Claimant grievances. Counsel submitted that, assuming there exists any arrears of leave allowance same issue will be contained in Exhibit CLD rather than just the agreement between the Claimant and the Defendant that henceforth payment of the Claimant’s leave entitlements should be paid in bulk. The above agreement was executed at the time of peace without this Honourable court interpretation. 14. Counsel further argued that the Claimant failed to cross examine the subpoenaed witness despite same opportunity granted by this Honourable Court. The Supreme Court in OLASEHINDE V. STATE (2019) 1 NWLR (PT.1654) 560 held that “when a witness is not cross examined on a material fact, the court can take the silence as an acceptance that the party concerned does not dispute that fact. While relying on the above, Counsel urged the court to refuse claim number 40 (E) and to hold that the Claimant has failed to substantiate the above claim. 15. Counsel also argued that the Claimant admitted under cross examination not to have worked or rendered any service to the Defendant from December 2016 till date and therefore in counsel’s opinion this negates the claim of the Claimant contained in 40 G. 16. Counsel while relying on the Supreme Court case of OBOT V. CBN (1993) 1 NWLR (PT 310) 140, the Supreme Court clearly stated the law thus – “An employee dismissed in breach of his contract of employment cannot choose to treat the contract as subsisting and claim for salaries and entitlements he could have earned up to the end of the contractual period”. 17. On the issue of payment of the alleged Claimant’s redundancy benefits, there is nothing before this Honourable court stating the actual benefits of the Claimant as the claim is vague. Counsel argued that the Supreme Court has cautioned that a claim for salary, allowances and the like without any particularization as to show how the sum was earned and arrived at makes such a claim as vague. See UNIVERSITY OF JOS V. DR. M. C. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR (PT.1360) 478. Counsel urged the court to refuse the alternative prayer of the Claimant as being vague without substance. 18. Counsel further submitted that the Exhibits before the Court are at variance with the oral testimony of the Claimant. Counsel submitted that the Claimant has failed in particularization of his alleged redundancy benefit as to show his definite entitlements and show how such an alleged sum was arrived at. This court does not act on speculation rather on facts. This Honourable court cannot grant a vague claim. Counsel submitted that all the Exhibits before the court does not state and particularize the Claimant’s entitlements in the event of redundancy. It is well settled, that parole evidence cannot be used to alter the terms of a written agreement. It is also settled that parties cannot read into a document what is not there or read out of it and what is not there. On this contention counsel relied on the case of U.B.N. LTD V SAX (NIG) LTD & ORS. (1994) 8 NWLR (PT 361) 150. 19. Counsel concluded his argument on issue 1 by submitting that from the totality of the evidence by the Claimant before the Court there is riddled with exaggeration, unreasonableness, oppressive, unconscionable in his demand for damages. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant because the evidence to support the claims of the Claimant are unreliable and incredible. More so, the Claimant has failed to prove his claims against the Defendant. 20. In arguing issue 2; a. The effect of a party who failed to adduce reliable and credible evidence to prove his case in Court. 21. Counsel argued that the Claimant having failed to adduce evidence of termination by the Defendant cannot claim that his appointment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant. Counsel submitted with respect that a party who desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependant on the existence of fact, which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist. Refer to Section 131 (1) of the Evidence Act Cap E14 (2011). 22. Finally, Counsel submitted that the Claimant also failed to specifically prove his entitlement by particularizing them and proving same. This is because a claim that is vague and lack certainty is no claim at all. See the case of UNIJOS v DR. M.C. IKEGWUOHA (2013) 9 NWLR PT 1360, OG 478 AT 483 RATIO 3: The Court held that: a. “For a party to be awarded any relief by a court of Law, that party must not only plead with particularity but must also prove by credible and convincing evidence that he is indeed entitled to the Relief he seeks.” 23. Counsel humbly urged the court to refuse the claims of the Claimant before the court for failing to prove the case against the Defendant as required by law. 24. THE SUBMISSION OF THE CLAIMANT: 25. The counsel for the Claimant, Emmanuel Bisong, Esq. filed his final written address dated and filed 10/9/19, and adopted same on the 21/1/2020 as his argument in the matter. 26. In the written address Claimant’s Counsel outlined 2 issues for determination by the Honourable Court, to wit: 1. Whether the Defendant did not follow due procedures at the time it determined the Claimant’s employment through the redundancy exercise of 22nd December, 2016. 2. Whether the Claimant having been affected by redundancy is entitled to his all benefits that accrue to him as Defendant’s employee who has been affected by a redundancy exercise. Counsel argued both issues as composite issues; 27. Whether the Defendant did not follow due procedures at the time it determined the Claimant’s employment through the redundancy exercise of 22nd December, 2016. a. And 28. Whether the Claimant having been affected by redundancy is entitled to his all benefits that accrue to him as Defendant’s employee who has been affected by a redundancy exercise. 29. Counsel argued that in paragraph 2.0 of its written address the Defendant had contended that the Claimant was affected by redundancy. And it follows with the submissions of the Defendant that the Claimant was affected by redundancy that the law applicable to redundancy must be applicable in this contest. Counsel reproduced the provision of SECTION 20 of the Labour Act. 30. Counsel submitted that there is no evidence before this court to show that the Defendant complied with these mandatory provisions of section 20 of the Labour Act. There is also, no evidence to the effect that the Defendant made any endeavour to negotiate the redundancy benefits with the Claimant. On this score the court is urge not place any probative value on the Defendant’s defence in that the procedure adopted for the redundancy was fraudulent. 31. Counsel argued that as to whether the Defendant has paid to the Claimant all the benefits accruable to the Claimant adequately and sufficiently, in full or at all. It has been established in evidence that the Claimant was prevented from resuming work on 22nd December, 2016 till date. His passport photograph was pasted at the Defendant’s premises barring the Claimant from ever accessing the Defendant’s premises on alleged account of threat to life on its expatriate staff. The allegation of threat to life is criminal in nature and must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But the Defendant did not proffer or adduce any evidence in support of it claims on the allegation of threat to the lives of its expatriate staff, accordingly we shall urge the court to discountenance that allegation for want of evidence. 32. The Claimant’s counsel submitted that Claimant was disengaged in a way not contemplated by the contract of employment between parties. Not even the Defendant’s Hand book made provisions for such mode of disengagement. However, the labour Act made provisions for such mode of disengagement though the Defendant did not adhere to the provisions of the Act, on the steps to follow in disengaging the Claimant through redundancy. Under the law where an employee is affected by redundancy he shall entitled to redundancy benefits. 33. The Defendant contended that it invited the Claimant but Claimant refused to come and accept its letter of redundancy, however the said invitation is not before the court and no attempt has been made to tender it. It is in evidence that the Claimant came to work on the 22nd December, 2016 but was refused entry to resume work. The Defendant admitted this at paragraph 15 of its statement of defence. 34. Counsel also argued that In contending its case the Defendant tendered in evidence exhibits DWD1-5 through its witness the DW1 a General manager of the Defendant. The Defendant also tendered in evidence exhibit CLF through a subpoenaed witness from the Arm Pension. Exhibits DWD1-5 and exhibits CLF are both from the same source, the Arm Pension with one intended purpose. The exhibits where all tendered by the Defendant. Claimant’s contention is that the two exhibits contradict themselves. In any case, the two exhibits DWD and CLF are from the same source and contradict one another. The law is that when the evidence of a party is manifestly contradictory the court is urged not to rely on it as credible. See the case of EKWEOZOR & ORS v. THE REGISTERED TRUSTEES OF SAVIOURS APOSTOLIC CHURCH OF Nigeria (2014) LPELR-23572(CA) where the court held that: "Where a witness gives contradictory evidence on the same issue, the court is not in a position to choose one and reject the order, the two pieces of evidence must be rejected and such a witness is not capable of being believed." Per BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A. (Pp. 59-60, paras. G-A). 35. Counsel urged the Court not to rely on these two documents or place any probative value on them. The document Exhibits DWD and CLF are computer generated document 36. Counsel argued that the document exhibit DWD and CLF are computer generated documents which did not comply with the provisions of the law at the time there were wrongly admitted. See KUBOR & ANOR V. DICKSON & 2 ORS (2012) LPELR-15364(CA) the court of Appeal held as follows: a. "84(1) In any proceeding a statement contained in a document produced by a computer shall be admissible as evidence of any fact stated in it of which direct oral evidence would be admissible, if it is shown that the conditions in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied in relation to the statement and computer in question. b. (2) The conditions referred to in subsection (1) of this section are- (a) That the document containing the statement was produced by the computer during a period over which the computer was used regularly to carried on over that period, whether for profit or not, by any body, whether corporate or not, or by any individual; (b) That over that period there was regularly supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities information of the kind contained in the statement or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived; (c) That throughout the material part of that period the computer was operating properly or, if not, that in any respect in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of that period was not such as to affect the production of the document or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) That the information contained in the statement reproduces or is derived from information supplied to the computer in the ordinary course of those activities." 37. In the instant case exhibit DWD and CLF being computer generated documents ought to meet the above requirements and failure to meet same is fatal. The law is that where evidence which ought not be admitted is wrongly admitted, it can be expunged from the courts record even on appeal. The Claimant has not been adequately paid his benefits that flows from the determination of his employment. 38. Counsel argued that assuming, without conceding that the court finds the Claimant may have been paid some benefits; the Claimant shall contend that the alleged payment was not adequate on the face of it. The Defendant has contended that the Claimant was affected by redundancy on the 22nd December, 2016. And tendered exhibits DW1 in evidence. The exhibit shows that the Defendant made an alleged online transfer of N165,000 as three months gross salary of the Claimant, however there is no evidence that said payment was communicated to the Claimant. In view of the above, Counsel submitted that if the Claimant was affected by redundancy as the Defendant has pleaded and given evidence of as exhibit DW1 then the Claimant must be paid his full redundancy benefits that flows from the terms and conditions pleaded in this document. 39. Counsel argued that the Claimant has proved it case and is entitled to the reliefs sought. Nonetheless, there is in Defendant’s defence some pieces of evidence to which the Claimant can rely to further strengthen its claims. 40. Counsel argued that they indeed agree with the Defendant that it is trite law that a Claimant ought to succeed on the strength of his own case and not rely on the weakness of that of the defence however the law has gone beyond that to the effect that the Claimant may rely on the Defendant’s weakness if some ingredients in the Defendant’s case supports his case or if there is a vital piece of admitted evidence in the Defendant’s case which the Claimant is entitled to rely on. See Adebambo v. Olowosago (1985) 3 NWLR (Pt.11 Also, in Olisa v. Asojo (2002) 1 NWLR (Pt 747)13 it was held that: "The statement that a plaintiff must in a claim for a declaration of title rely on the strength of his own case and not on the weakness of the defence now admits of a number of recognized exceptions. It has no place where there are facts and factors in the Defendants' case which supports the plaintiffs' case: See Akinola & Anor v. Oluwo (1962)1 (Pt.11) ALL NLR 224 at 225; Akunwata Nwagbogu v. Chief M. O. Ibeziako (1972) 2E.C.S.L.R. (Pt. 1) 335 at 338. 41. In conclusion Counsel urged the court to grant the Claimant’s reliefs. REPLY ON POINTS OF LAW BY THE DEFENDANT TO THE CLAIMANT’S FINAL WRITTEN ADDRESS 42. Defendant’s counsel submitted that the practice and procedures of this Honourable court are regulated by National Industrial Court of Nigeria (Civil Procedure) Rules 2017, and the filing of Final Written Address is provided by Order 45 of the rules of the court, particularly Rules 9 to 13., but despite the above provision, in the instant case, the Defendant filed and served its Final Written Address on the Claimant on the 9th day of July, 2019. By the afore-cited Rules of this Honourable Court, the Claimant ought to have filed and served (if he wished to) his Final Written Address within 21 days from such service on him of the Defendant’s Final Written Address or alternatively file an application for extension of time at least seven (7) days before expiration of the twenty one 21days ordered by the Court. Counsel argued that the Claimant was in flagrant disregard of the rules of the Court and therefore ought to be foreclosed from filing final written address in the present case. Consequently, Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Claimant’s Final Written address. See the cases of SARAKI V. KOTOYE (1990) 4 NWLR (PT.264) 144; MAJA V. SAMOURIS (2002) 3 S.C. 37 AT 45. 43. Counsel informed the court that, the way and manner of practice adopted by the Claimant’s Counsel is dishonourable, ignoble and should be deprecated by the court and by the Rules of Professional Conduct for Legal Practitioners, particularly rules 1 and 31(1)(k) are to the effect that “ A lawyer shall uphold and observe the rule of law, promote and foster the course of justice, maintain high standard of professional conduct and shall not engage in any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner; 31(1)(k) In appearing in his professional capacity before a court or tribunal, a lawyer shall not … In any other way do or perform any act which may obviously amount to abuse of the process of the court, or which is dishonourable and unworthy of any officer of the law charge with the duty to aiding in the administration of justice. See the classical case of RONDELL V. WORSLEY. 44. Counsel also argued that he Claimant from his arguments canvassed in his Final Written Address, by all reasonable legal inferences has abandoned his claims as per his Statement of Claim and in his purported Final Written Address refused or neglected to proffer any legal argument in support of his claims on the face of his Statement of Claim rather the Claimant inadvertently by his address admitted the defence of the Defendant, but unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the probative value of the Defendant’s documentary evidence which at the trial was never challenged nor impeached by the Claimant. Counsel stated that it is trite that legal argument no matter how brilliant and elegant is couch cannot take the place of evidence. See ADENBAMBI V. JANGBON (2007) ALL FWLR (PT.383) 152; R V. COBOLAH 10 WACA 223. 45. It is submitted that the Claimant entirely resile from his claim having failed to prove same by cogent and compelling evidence and admitted in entirety the defence of the Defendant. 46. Counsel submitted that indeed the Claimant argued that he has not been adequately paid his benefits that flow from the determination of his employment, however by this argument, Claimant admits he has been paid his benefits under the contract of employment but however complains of its adequacy. One would have reasonably expected the Claimant to tell the Court with mathematical exactitude what his adequate benefits are under the employment. This also Counsel submitted that the Claimant failed to establish. 47. Counsel argued that in the instant case, the Defendant in compliance section 84 of the Evidence Act tendered Exhibits DWC1-2 which is a certificate of compliance to section 84 of the Evidence Act. He Your Lordship to discountenance the Claimant’s argument that section 84 of the Evidence Act was not complied with. See KUBOR V. DICKSON (2012) LPELR 15364. 48. The Claimant final written address paragraph 2.01 confirms actions of the Defendants as contained in paragraph 9, 10 and 12 of the statement of Claim because the Defendant informed the Claimant and his union members of the redundancy and adopted among other factors merit, skill and reliability. A servant whose employment has been terminated cannot claim for salary for period no longer in employment. SPRING BANK V BABATUNDE (2012) ALL FWLR (Pt. 609) 1191 at 1205. 49. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the Claimant’s final written address and dismiss Claimant’s claims for having been abandoned by Claimant. COURT’S DECISION 50. Having carefully considered the entire case file and having attentively listened to the testimonies of witnesses that testified in this suit as well as considered the written submissions and oral submissions of counsel for both parties. 51. Before considering the merit of the Claimant’s case, it behooves on me to thrash out the preliminary objection raised by the counsel for the Defendant in his final written address to the competency of the Claimant’s final written address. The counsel for the Defendant has argued that the final written address of the Claimant was filed out of time as provided by the rules of court. Counsel urged the court to discountenance the Claimant’s final written address as being incompetent. Counsel also raised certain ethical conduct of counsel for the Claimant regarding the final written address wherein counsel for the Defendant alleged fraudulent conduct through connivance with registry staff of the court for the counsel for the Claimant to evade payments of default fees. 52. I have looked at the processes under attack, it is clear to me that the record of the court shows that the Defendant filed final written address on 9/7/2019, the said final written address of the Defendant was on 10/7/2019, served on the Claimant via his counsel. This means that 21 days within which to file final written address is to commenced on 11/7/2019 and to expire on 2/8/2019, the Claimant filed his final written address on 2/10/2019, this means that the Claimant did file his final written address out of time without leave or extension of time first sought and obtained. There is nothing in the record of the court to show that the Claimant applied for leave or extension of time to file his final written address out of time. 53. I quite agree with counsel for the Defendant that rules of court are meant to be obeyed. However, the rules cannot be taken to be stumbling block to determination of dispute brought before the court thus why Order 5 Rule 1 of the rules of this court has empower the court to in appropriate cases consider the non-compliance with rules to be mere irregularity. In view of the fact that this objection was not raised via an application, at the earliest opportunity, but through reply address which the Claimant does not have right of reply I consider the non-compliance to amount to mere irregularity and since the said final address being objected to had been adopted, I deemed it properly filed and served. However, counsel must ensure payment of appropriate default fees and evidence of such to be forwarded to the registrar of this court for the record. 54. The counsel for the Defendant has insinuated connivance between counsel for the Claimant and registry staff due the stamp appearing to suggest the process was received much earlier than the date of filing. That is not enough to attribute wrong doing on counsel for the Claimant without more. This is because counsel for the Claimant does not own the stamp of the registry if there is any wrong doing is not that of counsel for the Claimant. Since there is no evidence showing that it was counsel that affixed or orders the affixing of the wrong date on the document. One thing that is clear and uncontroverted the handwritten date tallies with the date on the final address. I shall rest this issue here without saying more. 55. From the reliefs being sought by the Claimant, the Claimant is seeking for declarations that the purported termination of his appointment is premature wrongful at law and contrary to the condition of service, it is a breach of contract and negates all agreements reached between Claimant’s union and Defendant and therefore wrongful null and void, an order compelling Defendant to Claimant his annual leave allowances assessed at the rate of 10% of Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996which was due from 2007 till December 2016, an order directing Defendant to the Claimant all his pension funds 85 basic salary deducted from 2007 till December 2016 and 12% of the Defendant’s mandatory pension contribution withheld by her throughout the Claimant’s employment, an order for payment of all entitlement, gratuity, severance package, all benefits flowing from such termination all pension funds deducted from the Claimant’s salary from the date of employment till December 2016, an order for payment of all salaries withheld from January 2017 till the final determination of this suit. in the alternative an order for payment of Claimant’s redundancy benefit to which Claimant is entitled to, N15,000,000 nominal damages for the severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged him into. 56. The evidence as led in this case is that there has been a long standing tussle between the Defendant as employer and its employees. The tussle relates to condition of service and general staff welfare. One of such dispute between the Claimant and Defendant was even mediated upon by the Federal Ministry of Labour and Employment in which a communiqué was reached between the parties. Another communiqué mediate by ministry of labour was in 2016 with a communiqué issued. Sometime in December 2016 the Defendant notified the Claimant and invited its union members for a collective bargain. At the meeting the issue of redundancy was raised by the Defendant and the reason it gave was that there is a shortfall of profit from casino. The Claimant instantly objected to the issue of redundancy in that Claimant and colleagues constitute the Claimant’s financial engine room and are all time aware of associated revenue inflow into Defendant’s purse whereof the meeting was adjourned to a subsequent date. At the second meeting the Claimant’s branch of the union invited its National president comrade Aderemi and other National officers. At the said meeting the Defendant again raised issue of redundancy and gave conditions for effective redundancy. 57. It was in evidence that the Defendant had made frequent deductions and called them pension funds and they were deducted at 8% of Claimant’s basic salary of N648,996.00 and that the Defendant was also mandatorily contributing 12% of the said basic salary per month and that yet all the said sums were not reflected in the pension Managers account and were never remitted. Claimant further testified that he has never been paid his annual leave allowance which is 10% of his basic salary. The Claimant stated that he had reported to work as usual on the 22nd of December 2016 but was denied access to his duty post without explanation. Claimant testified that in view of the abrupt redundancy he reported to the Federal Ministry of Labour and productivity that invited parties for a collective bargain. Claimant testified that the result of the said meeting between the Defendants, the Federal Ministry of Labour and the Union was an agreement by the Defendant to suspend the intended retrenchment. The Claimant testified that the Defendant’s sudden decision to retrench the Claimant came as a surprise. The Claimant stated that in line with the Defendant’s handbook, he had never been issued any form of warning in the past to warrant his termination and that no reason was ever stated for the said termination. The Claimant believes that his termination was merely done out of malice as his termination are against the rules and laws of Nigeria and repugnant to natural justice, equity and good conscience and that the action of the Defendant has plunged him into severe hardship and psychological trauma. 58. For the Defendant the Claimant was affected by redundancy because the Defendant was unable to meet its obligations based on lack of patronage of its Casino business and also, for lack of patronage the Defendant was forced to shut down 4 (Four) out of its 9 (Nine) Business Tables at the Abuja office and the Claimant was aware of the challenges faced by the Defendant occasioned by lack of patronage of its business and that based on the circumstances the Defendant was unable to meet its obligation to its Landlord as rent was constantly in arrears for lack of patronage. Furthermore, the Defendant proposed a 10% (Ten Per cent) salary cut because of the Economic challenges being encountered by the Defendant but the proposal was rejected by the Claimant. The Claimant insisted on a 5% (Five per cent) deduction which was not sustainable by the Defendant. The Claimant was invited by the Defendant but the Claimant refused to accept his letter of redundancy. However, the Claimant’s entitlements were paid to him through his usual Bankers, Guaranty Trust Bank in the sum of N165, 000.00 (One Hundred and Sixty-Five Thousand Naira) only being 3 Months Gross Salary. The sum of N45, 000.00 (Forty-Five Thousand Naira) only being for Public holiday payment. 59. The counsel for the Claimant in the final written address focused on issue of redundancy and failed to advance argument on issue of termination of appointment which is the main claim n this suit. The claim on redundancy was in the alternative which means it is only when the main claim on termination failed that the claim on redundancy can be considered. See Access Bank Plc V Sijuwade (2016) LPELR-40188(CA) 60. Though the Claimant is vide the submission contained in the final written address making case for claim on redundancy, pension gratuity and damages. I shall never the less consider the issue of termination since that is the main claim before considering the merit of the claim on redundancy. 61. Reliefs a, b and c are for declaration that the termination of Claimant’s employment was premature, wrongful at law and contrary to condition of service. It also amount to breach of contract and negates all agreements reached between Claimant’s union and Defendant and therefore wrongful null and void. Going by the pleadings and testimonies of the parties before the court, there is no doubt that the case of the Claimant before the court is that of termination of employment with an alternative claim on redundancy. 62. It is trite where employee alleges wrongful termination of his employment like in the case at hand; the onus is on the employee to prove the wrongful termination. The employee is to prove that he was employed by the Defendant, as well as the terms and conditions of service and how the terms and conditions of service were breached by the employer. see Amodu V Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt,150) 356, @ 370; Morohunfola V Kwara State College of Technology (1990) 4 NWLR (Pt.145) 506 @ 519. 63. In an attempt to prove his case the Claimant tendered exhibit CL1-2, contract of employment dated 1//2014, exhibit CLB1-15, employment contract Rahman Adewale, exhibit CLF, Employee Handbook (terms and conditions of service), CLE1-2, memo on retrenchment addressed to all Abuja staff of the Defendant dated 9/5/2016, exhibit CLC Communiqué of 17/12/2013, exhibit CLD communiqué of 23/3/2016 and exhibit DWE letter of redundancy dated 22/12/2016 64. The term of contract of service is the bedrock of any case where the issue of wrongful termination of employment calls for determination. See Amodu v. Amode (1990) 5 NWLR (Pt.150) 356; Iwuchukwu v. Nwizu (1994) 7 NWLR (Pt.357) 379 at 412. In Amodu v. Amode (supra) Agbaje. JSC who read the leading judgment observed at page 370 as follows:- "It appears clear to me that since it is the plaintiff's case that his dismissal by the Defendants is not in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of service between them it is for the plaintiff to plead and prove the conditions of service regulating the contract of service in question." To this, Wali. JSC added at page 373, stating that: "The term of the contract of service is the bedrock of the appellant's case." 65. As the contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof. Therefore, in a written or documented contract of service, the court will not and should not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties:- See Western Nigerian Development Corporation v. Abimbola (1966) 4 NSCC 172 at 188. (1966) 1 aLL NLR 159. In that case, the Supreme Court held at page 194 of the report inter alia as follows:- "That the provisions of a written contract of service bind the parties thereto and it was outside the province of the learned Judge to look at anywhere for terms of termination of the contract other than in the contract agreement." 66. In a contract of employment, parties are bound by the terms of the contract particularly where the terms of the contract are clear and unambiguous. See U.B.N. PLC V Emmanuel Aderewaju Soares (2012)29 N.L.L.R. (pt.84) 329. 67. In the case at hand the Claimant relied on exhibits CL1-2, (contract of employment), CLB1-15(employment contract), CLC (communiqué) issued at the end of meeting held between management of leisure investment capital limited (Jacarada Casino) and aggrieved staff at the instance of the Federal Ministry of Labour and Productivity on 17/December 2013, exhibit CLD (Communiqué) signed by representatives of Defendant, representative of workers and representative of Federal Ministry of Labour, CLE1-2 a communication to all the members of staff of the Defendant on retrenchment). 68. The case of the Claimant is to the effect that on 22/12/16, he came to report for work but he was denied access to his duty post and all entreaties to seek for explanation to know why he can no longer be allowed to resume duty met stiff resistance. The only response the Defendant gave to the Claimant was to have the Claimant’s passport photograph pasted on its notice board declaring the Claimant a persona non gratis in its organization and as a person without access to their duty post. He stated no opportunity was given to him to defend himself orally or in writing against any allegation of misconduct that may have purportedly leveled against him. 69. For the Defendant the Claimant has not established that his employment was terminated. The absence of proof of termination has rendered the Claimant claim liable to be dismissed. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the Claimant’s claim for lack of proof. 70. I need to emphasize the bindingness of the terms of the contract of service between the parties. There is no doubt that the parties' freedom of contract carries with it the inevitable implication of sanctity of their contracts. This means that if any question should arise with respect to the contract, the terms in any documents which constitute the contract are, invariably, the guide to its interpretation. The relationship between the Claimant and the Defendant is governed by exhibit CL1-2, CL1-15 and CLF, the staff Handbook. During the subsistence of the contract of service between the Claimant and the Defendants exhibits CLC, CLD and CLE1-2 come into operation. From these exhibits the contract of employment of the Claimant is determinable by giving notice or payment in lieu of notice or by dismissal for misconduct after taking of disciplinary action. The Claimant insisted that his employment was terminated by the Defendant in violation of laid down rules and regulations governing their contractual relationship as encapsulated in exhibits CL1-2, CLB1-15, and CLF the staff handbook. Vide Article 4.9 the notice of termination for permanent staff is one month. Notice for other employees us as provided in the letter of employment. Vide Article 6 employee that work for 12 months will be entitled to paid leave. This means that if any question should arise with respect to the contract, the terms in any documents which constitute the contract are, invariably, the guide to its interpretation. 71. The material question is; was the employment of the Claimant terminated in violation of the contract agreement or was it terminated based on redundancy as claimed by the Defendant. 72. Reliefs a, b and c are for declarations that the Claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the Defendant without any notice contrary to conditions of service and in reneging on the agreements reached by the Defendant and the Union of workers and representative of workers where the Defendant agreed not to embark of retrenchment and instead a 5% salary cut was agreed as panacea. The Defendant insisted that the employment of the Claimant was not terminated but affected by redundancy. The Defendant also insisted that the Claimant has not proved that his employment was terminated by the Defendant in the circumstance the court was urged to dismiss the Claimant’s claim for lack of proof of termination. 73. The evidence before the court shows clearly that the Claimant on 22/12/2016, reported for duty as usual, but he was not allowed to access his duty post and there was pasted his photograph at notice board denying him access to the premises of the Defendant. Interestingly the Defendant has not disputed this vital evidence. It was admitted that the Claimant was denied access to his duty post and he was not served or issued with any letter for his disengagement from service. 74. With the state of the evidence before that court I have no choice than to agree that the Claimant’s employment was terminated with effect from 22/12/2016, when the Claimant was denied access to his duty post and since then he had not been allowed access to the premises of the Defendant till date. Close 4.9 of exhibit CLF, Employee Handbook, has made it clear that a permanent employee of the Defendant can have his employment terminated by giving him one month notice of termination. The Claimant in this case being a permanent staff of the Claimant will have to be given one month notice for his contract of employment to be properly determined. With the way and manner the Claimant was abruptly refused access to his duty post and with no communication to him as to the status of his employment, it can safely be said that the employment of the clamant was terminated without giving him any notice of termination. This has made termination of Claimant’s employment wrongful in law. But, this does not make it null and void since it is a contract of master and servant. See Obianwuna V NEPA (2016) LPELR-40935(CA); Union Bank of Nigeria ltd V Ogboh (1995) 2 SCNJ 1 @ 16; UBN V Okenwa (1994) LPELR-23178(CA). it must be noted though the termination is wrongful, it never the less operates to bring the contract to an end. The only remedy open to the Claimant is payment of damages. 75. Vide relief g the Claimant is seeking for payment of his salaries purportedly withheld from January 2017 till final determination of his this suit. Or in the alternative payment of redundancy benefit. The declaration of termination of Claimant’s employment wrongful does not carry along with it making the Claimant to still be in service or consider his employment still subsisting or still be in the service of the Defendant. The reason being that the Claimant’s employment is not that has statutory flavour. In master servant relationship, declaring contract of employment wrongful will only entitled the Claimant to payment of damages for the period of notice and no more. 76. In the circumstances of this case, the Claimant though have his employment declared wrongfully terminated cannot claim for salaries for period he did not work or from the date of termination to date of judgment. The reason being that the termination even though wrongful has effectively ended the relationship. See UBN V Okenwa (supra). The Claimant is not entitled to payment of salaries from January 2017 till judgment since the Claimant had his employment terminated. The law does not allow granting payment of salaries work not done. Since the Claimant in his evidence under cross examination has confirmed that he has not been going to work since 22/12/2016, when he was denied access to his duty post is not entitle to make claim for the period in which he had not done any work for the Defendant. The position of the law remains that where there has been a purported termination of a contract of service, a declaration to the effect that the contract of service still subsists will rarely be made. See Bankole v. N.B.C. (1968) 2 All NLR 372 and Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (1985) 2 NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 at 612 where Oputa JSChad this to say on the subject of termination of master and servant relationship under a contract of service. "The law regarding master and servant is not in doubt. There is also no doubt that the contract of master and servant is subject of both statutory and common law rules. By and large, the master can terminate the contract with his servant at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all. But if he does so in a manner not warranted by the particular contract under review, he must pay damages for breach." 77. On the alternative relief for payment of redundancy benefit. I have scrutinized exhibit CLF and the letters of appointment there is nothing on redundancy. Usually claim for redundancy is based on provision of staff Handbook or terms and conditions of service. In the absence of such provision in the staff Handbook resort will be heard to statute and in this case Labour Act, section 20 has made ample provisions to govern redundancy and the procedure to follow. The section read:- section 20 of Labour Act provides as follows - ''(1). In the event of redundancy - (a). the employer shall inform the trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy; (b). the principle of ''last in, first out'' shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability; and (c). the employer shall use his best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made under sub-section (2) of this section. (2). The Minister may make regulations providing, generally or in particular cases, for the compulsory payment of redundancy allowances on the termination of a worker's employment because of his redundancy. (3). In this section, ''redundancy'' means an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess manpower''. 78. The provisions of section 20 of Labour Act quoted above is very clear and unambiguous enough to warrant no controversies as to when there is redundancy in an organisation. It is however not unusual for employers of labour to not declare redundancy even when the situation is not controverted. 79. The state of the law remains trite that he who asserts must prove his assertion to be entitled to positive judicial intervention. The proof must be by adducing credible and cogent evidence in support of his claims. See Ogbonna & Anor. v. Jumbo & Ors. (2015) LPELR-24378 (CA). The claims of the Claimant are in the alternative. The Claimant is seeking for payment of salaries from January 2017 till judgment and in the alternative redundancy benefit. 80. Vide exhibit C1-2, it was stated by the Defendant that it had agreed to reconsider retrenchment of staff subject to the condition that all staff involved agreed to a 5% salary cut from 1/5/2016 in lieu of retrenchments. 81. Based on exhibit C1-2, the Claimant continued to serve the Defendant from the date of exhibit C1-2, until after about seven Months, then the Defendant on 22/12/2016, when the Claimant reported for duty she was refused access to her duty post and all entreaties to know why she will not be allowed to resume work met with stiff opposition. The Defendant has admitted denying Claimant access to her duty post on 22/12/2016. They have also admitted not issuing any letter to the Claimant either terminating her appointment or declaring her redundant. The purported payment of redundancy benefit to the Claimant was done Nine months after the Claimant was denied access to her duty post. 82. The law is that where an employer relied on either redundancy, retrenchment, reorganization or unproductivity to end contractual relationship, the employer would be expected to have facts or the law in support. The burden is on him to satisfy the court on this. To place the burden on the Claimant will lead to miscarriage of justice. See Psychiatric Hospital Management board V Ejitagha (2000) 11 NWLR (pt.677) 154, (2000) 6 SC (pt.ii) 1, (2000) LPELR-2930(SC), Onobruchere V Esegine (1986) 1 NWLR (pt.19) 779; (1986) 2 SC 385. The Defendant maintained that the Claimant was affected by declaration of redundancy. While the Claimant seems to be in a state of quandary not being in clear picture of what had happened. 83. The Defendant claimed that the Claimant position or post was declared redundant to her knowledge. However, there was no such declaration tendered by the Defendant for the court’s inspection. The only document relied on by the Defendant is exhibit CLE1-2 a document dated 9/5/2016, with the subject retrenchment. A careful perusal of this document will show that it is a document issued to the generality of the members of staff of the Defendant to intimate them of the agreement the Defendant reached with the representatives of workers on issue of retrenchment. It is clear from exhibit CLE1-2, issued by the Defendant that the muted idea for retrenchment of staff has been shelved by the Defendant on condition of 5% salary cut for all staff. However, exhibit CLE1-2, has made it clear that the Defendant despite the accord reached with the representatives of the workers it still reserve the right to take disciplinary action against any erring member of staff or embark on retrenchment at any time should the condition demand further cut. 84. The critical question to resolve is whether the denial of the Claimant on 22/12/16 to resume duty can be said to amount to retrenchment or redundancy as being claimed by the Defendant. 85. Going by the pleadings and testimonies of the parties before the court, there is no doubt that the case of the Claimant before the court is that of wrongful termination of employment. While the defence of the Defendant was built around redundancy. In section 20(3) of the Labour Act provides: (3). In this section, ''redundancy'' means an involuntary and permanent loss of employment caused by an excess manpower''. In Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition at page 1469, the word ‘redundancy’ was defined to mean: ‘A situation in which an employee is laid off from work because the employer no longer need the employee’’. 86. In Peugeot Automobile Nigeria Ltd V Oje & Ors. (1997) LPELR-6331(CA), redundancy was defined as follows:- "Redundancy in service in my view, is a mode of removing off an employee from service when his post is declared "redundant" by his employee. It is not a voluntary or forced retirement. It is not a dismissal from service. It is not a voluntary or forced resignation. It is not a termination of appointment as is known in public service. It is a form unique only to its procedure where an employee is quietly and lawfully relieved of his post. Such type of removal from office does not, in my view, carry along with it any other benefit except those benefits enumerated by the terms of contract to be payable to an employee declared "redundant." Per MOHAMMED, J.C.A. (P. 15, paras. A-D) 87. From the above definitions of redundancy, it is a special mode of disengagement of worker from employment of his employer. However, this mode or procedure for it to be effective it has to conform to the procedure provided in the terms and conditions of service where the contract of service is evidenced in writing. See Peugeot Auto Mobile V Oje (supra) or as provided by Labour Act where the employee Handbook does not make provisions for redundancy like in the case at hand. 88. Section 20(1) of the Labour Act requires employer to inform the trade union or workers' representative concerned of the reasons for and the extent of the anticipated redundancy; the employer should also ensure that the principle of ''last in, first out'' shall be adopted in the discharge of the particular category of workers affected, subject to all factors of relative merit, including skill, ability and reliability; and the employer shall use his best endeavours to negotiate redundancy payments to any discharged workers who are not protected by regulations made minister of labour. 89. The Defendant that relied on redundancy must convince the court of his compliance with the laid down procedure of redundancy in section 20(1) of the Labour act. From the content of exhibit CLE1-2, it will be right to conclude that the claim by the Defendant that the incident of 22/12/2016 amount to redundancy is not supported by any iota of evidence. 90. A careful perusal of exhibit CLE1-2, will show that it is a document issued by the Defendant to the generality of the members of staff to intimate them of the agreement the Defendant reached with the representatives of workers on issue of retrenchment. It is stated that the Defendant is prepared to reconsider the retrenchment of staff at that time subject to all staff involved agreeing to 5% salary cut from 1/5/2016 in lieu of retrenchment. The Defendant implemented the 5% salary cut and the Claimant and other members of staff continued to enjoy their salary based on the agreement on 5% salary cut. This means that the looming redundancy has been jettisoned by the Defendant. 91. The agreement reached on 5% salary cut means that if in future the need arises for retrenchment or redundancy the Defendant must comply with the provision of section 20 of the Labour Act. There is no evidence before the court to show that on 22/12/2016, when the Claimant was denied access to her duty post the Claimant has notified the union or representative of the workers of looming redundancy. It has not also been shown that there was negotiation that was ensued in line with the provisions of section 20 of Labour Act on the redundancy entitlement or pay for the Claimant and all the other workers to be affected by the exercise. What all this point is to the fact that the Defendant did not comply with section 20 of the Labour Act and therefore, there was no redundancy. This view is supported by the fact that the Defendant did not issue any letter on redundancy to the Claimant. And if it has existed the Claimant would have tendered it at the trial. 92. From the evidence before the court the Defendant has not adduced any evidence to show that it had declared redundancy after the issuance of exhibit CLE1-2. There was also no evidence before the court to show that the Defendant has negotiated the entitlement of the affected staff to be affected by the redundancy. In view of non-compliance with the provisions of section 20 of the Labour Act on declaration of redundancy, I find and hold that the Defendant did not retrenched the Claimant on redundancy as there was no such declaration by the Defendant and there was no negotiation carried out on entitlement of staff affected as required by the provisions of section 20 of the Labour Act. 93. The Defendant has tendered exhibit DWB1-2, as evidence of payment of redundancy to Claimant. The Claimant has denied this assertion. I agree with the Claimant that exhibit DWB1-2, cannot be payment of redundancy when there was no negotiation to that effect as required by the law. The Claimant attempted under cross-examination to show that there was meetings before the payment as contained in exhibit DWB1-2, but the Claimant denied holding any meeting to that effect. The case of the Defendant was made worst with its admitting not to have served the Claimant with the letter of redundancy and failure to tender such letter if it ever existed. In the circumstance, it is my view that the Defendant has failed to prove that it determined the Claimant’s employment as a result of redundancy. 94. From this provision for a redundancy to be declared the employer is required to inform the union of workers or their representative of the extent of the redundancy and ensure that negotiation is done on payment of redundancy benefit to the affected employees. 95. The Claimant has averred and testified to the effect that at the two meeting convenes with the Union to which Claimant belong the Defendant has explicitly disclosed plan for retrenchment of workers due to redundancy. The Claimant has averred that the Union at the second meeting with the Defendant has made suggestion and gave conditions for effective redundancy. This piece of evidence has proved that the Defendant in line with section 20 of the Labour Act has declared redundancy and discussed the issue with the workers union. However, vide exhibit CLE1-2, the Defendant agreed to shelve the idea of redundancy if all the workers agreed to 5% salary cut. The Claimant continued to work with the Defendant based on exhibit CLE1-2, until 22/12/1016, when the Claimant was refused access to his duty post. Though, the Claimant still retained the power to disengage staff by whatever means. Any method adopted due process must be followed. On 22/12/2016 if the Defendant decides to terminate Claimant’s appointment based on redundancy the Defendant must comply with the provisions of section 20 of Labour Act. The reason being that even if there was proper declaration of redundancy exhibit CLE1-2, has changed the position and made any subsequent desire for redundancy to be validly made to follow the provision of section 20 of Labour act. Thus, it is for the organisation to take steps as appropriate and make a declaration of redundancy in line with the provisions of the Labour Act. Thought no letter of disengagement has been tendered to show whether the disengagement of the Claimant was due to redundancy or not, the Defendant has admitted retrenching the Claimant based on redundancy. The quarrel of the Claimant was that no declaration or discussion took place on the entitlement of the Claimant. However, the evidence of the Claimant to the effect that there was two meetings held on collective bargain where issue of redundancy was raised and the proffering of solution and conditions of effective redundancy given to the Defendant by the workers union has gone to establish that there was declaration of redundancy and discussion on it took place. However, the muted idea of redundancy fizzled out with exhibit CLE1-2. 96. In the absence of proof that the Defendant has declared redundancy after issuance of exhibit CLE1-2 and lack of proof of negotiation of payment of redundancy to affected staff has rendered the claim of the Defendant that the Claimant was affected by redundancy unacceptable. Therefore, I find and hold that the employment of the Claimant was not terminated on the basis of any redundancy as the Defendant want the court to believe. 97. Relief d is claim for leave allowance at 10% of his basic salary in the sum of N648,996 which was due from February 2010 till December 2016. In proof of this head of claim the Claimant averred that by his employment status he is entitled to annual leave with 10% leave allowance of his basic salary. Although he had been embarking on the said annual leave, but the Defendant always deferred payment of the said allowance. Till this time the Claimant has not been paid his leave allowance from 2010 to 2016. The Defendant has refuted the claim of the Claimant that he has never been paid his leave allowance. The Defendant averred that the Claimant has always been paid his leave allowance along with his monthly salary. 98. There is nothing in the pleading and evidence of the Claimant to establish the actual amount of monetary claim which he is making in respect of his alleged unpaid leave allowances from 2010 when he commenced work to 2016 when he was disengaged. It must be remembered that claim for leave allowance is a claim for special damages which need strict proof on concrete and credible evidence adduced before the court. Although, exhibit CLF and CLB1-15 have all stated that the Claimant will be entitled to paid leave for services rendered in every 12 Months there is nothing in the staff Hand book to show the actual percentage to be paid as annual leave allowance nor mention any quantum as what should be paid as leave allowance. The Claimant having failed to established the amount he is entitled to he has failed to prove relief d and same is refused. The claim of the Claimant was made more difficult by the denial by the Defendant. The Claimant who had asserted that he has been collecting his pay slip since he joined services of the Defendant should have tendered the pay slips as exhibit the failure to tender the pay slips there is no way the court can know whether Claimant has been receiving his pay annual leave. The clam for annual leave failed for being vague. And is hereby refused. 99. Relief e, is for payment of pension deductions and contributions from 2007 till 2016. In proof of this claim, the claim has in paragraphs 14, 15 and 16 of the statement of facts, stated that the Defendant at all times issues the Claimant with a pay slip for every monthly salary paid. In the pay slips various sum of pension contributions were compulsorily deducted every month to a supposed pension fund administrator from 2007 up till December 2016 when his employment was purportedly terminated. The deduction was 8% of Claimant’s basic salary and the Defendant to mandatorily contribute 12% if the said basic salary. According to the Claimant the deductions and what the Defendant was to contribute were never remitted to any pension administrator. The Claimant pleaded to rely on his pay slips but he never produced or tender the said pay slips as pleaded. The reaction of the Defendant was that the pension deductions and contribution of employer have been remitted to ARM Pension funds Administrator. To buttress this point counsel placed reliance on exhibit DW2A1-8, which is a letter from ARM pension in response to request for statement of account, with seven attachments? The attachments to the letter shows statement of account of the Claimant with ARM Pension showing all the remittances made by the Defendant to the Claimants pension savings account with ARM Pension Ltd. 100. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I accept the evidence of DW2 produced on subpoena as the correct statement of account of the Claimant with ARM Pension showing all the remittances from 1st July 2010 to December 2016. The Claimant has in his evidence stated that the remittance he is claiming in from 2007 to 2016, the question to ask can Claimant make claim for pension before he was employed, the answer is capital No. the Claimant having been employed on 1/7/2010 and disengaged on 22/12/2016 can only make clam for period of his engagement and no more. In the circumstance the claim for pension fails for lack of proof and same is hereby refused and dismissed. 101. Relief f, is for an order directing the Defendant to pay Claimant all his entitlements, gratuity, severance package, all benefits flowing from his termination and all pension funds deducted from the Claimant’s salary from time of employment till December 2016 and when his appointment was purportedly terminated. This relief is a summary of all the reliefs being sought by the Claimant in his statement of facts. It is an incongruous, vague, innocuous and without specifying the exactness of his monetary claims in the circumstance this relief is not grantable. The claim being for monetary is for special damages which by law has to be particularized and quantum of claim ascertained. The Claimant has also not tendered any evidence as to what his entitlement is all about. The failure by the Claimant to prove the quantum of his claim has deprived this court of the power to grant such claim, the claim is nebulous, indistinct and vague. The apex court has deprecated this type of claim and refused to grant it see University of jos v Ikegwuoka (2013) 9 NWLR (Pt.1360) 478, in that case the plaintiff had claimed an order directing the appellant to confirm his appointment as lecturer ii in the department of political science at University of Jos with effect from 27th January 1995 with all his promotions, allowances and entitlements, etc. the entire claim of the Claimant was dismissed, on appeal, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal. But on further appeal to Supreme Court, the appeal was allowed in part. However, the part of the claim relating to promotions, allowances and entitlement were adjudged not to have been satisfactorily proved and accordingly dismissed. The apex Court stated, thus: (a) ‘’All the reliefs to promotions, allowances and entitlements being reliefs that are vague, uncertain and lacking in particulars and proof by evidence must fails there was no evidence of any promotion, allowances or entitlements inuring to the respondent which appellant is withholding from being exercised in the respondent’s favour by the appellant.’’ 102. I must observe in regard to this matter that the Claimant has neither pleaded satisfactorily his special damages to wit; severance benefit as his entitlement. The law is well settled that unless pleaded specially and proved strictly, the court is not obliged to grant such claim or make any award in that regard for special damages. Relief h fails and same is hereby dismissed. 103. Relief h, is for payment of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira), for severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged him into. However, the Defendants’ position is that the Claimant is not entitled to general damages or any form of damages at all. It has long been settled that except a breach flows from damages contemplated by the parties at the time of entering the contract, no other damages should be awarded. Thus, there can be no room for claims which are merely speculative or sentimental unless these claims are provided for by the terms of the contract. The position of the law is that general damages are not awarded in actions of this nature. The Court of Appeal per Galadima JCA was succinct in Wilbros Nig. Ltd. & Anor. v. Macaulay  LPELR-8507, when it held on this as follows: "...a plaintiff in an action for wrongful or unlawful dismissal is not entitled to general damages because such general damages belong to the realm of claims in tort, while actions for damages for wrongful or unlawful dismissal are based on contract…In CO-OPERATIVE DEV. BANK ESSIEN (2001) 4 NWLR (Pt.704) 479 at 492, a matter in which the plaintiff brought a claim for wrongful dismissal, the Court held that in the consideration of an award in consequence of a breach of contract of employment the measure of damages is the loss flowing naturally from the breach and is incurred in direct consequence of the violation. It held further that the damages recoverable are the losses reasonably foreseeable by the parties and foreseen by them at the time of the contract as inevitably arising if one of them broke faith with the other. That in the contemplation of such a loss, there can be no room for claims which are merely speculative or sentimental unless these are specially provided for by the terms of contract.’’ Similarly, in UBN Plc v. Toyinbo  LPELR-5056, the Court of Appeal held as follows: “I agree therefore with the authorities of COOPERATIVE BANK PLC V. ESSIEN (2001) 4 N.W.L.R. (Pt. 704) 4079 at 492 paras. E. F; 493 B - C that the Plaintiff/Respondent would not have been entitled to general damages since an employee who successfully established wrongful termination of his employment would only be entitled to what would have been due to him for the period of notice. Thus, the Court below exceeded its bounds when it went ahead to award both special and general damages for breach of contract of employment as in this case. Again in line with the dictum of Karibi- Whyte in CHUKWUMAH V. SHELL PETROLEUM CO. LTD (1993) 4 N.W.L.R. (pt 285) 512 the Court awarded damages upon the assumption that the Respondent's appointment was terminated wrongfully and if at all that was the case, the damages should not have exceeded his salary and perquisite of office as at the time notice was not given to him. In other words, the principle of "restitution integrum" would have applied in the computation of damages." 104. In the case at hand the court having found the termination of Claimant’s employment to have been wrongful and appropriate remedy granted, the Claimant is not entitled to any other claim, granting such relief will amount to double compensation which the law frowns at. Relief h, for payment of the sum of N15,000,000.00 (Fifteen Million Naira), for severe hardship and serious psychological trauma which the action of the Defendant has plunged him into. The Claimant having been granted entitlement for redundancy is not entitle to any other grant of this nature to grant such relief it will amount to double compensation. The claim in relief h fails and is hereby refused and dismissed. 105. The pleading of the Claimant was riddled with typographical errors. This calls for more circumspection on part of counsel. This is because pleading is the backbone and foundation of any action instituted before the court. any mistake in drafting of leading may be very costly, as the errors may mar or inhibit securing of appropriate reliefs. 106. From the above exposition and findings, the order of the court is as follows:- 1. The Claimant’s employment is hereby declared to have been wrongfully terminated by conduct of the Defendant on 22/12/2016. 2. The Claimant is entitled to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice of termination. 3. The Defendant shall pay one month salary in lieu of notice of termination which the Defendant failed or neglected to give to the Claimant, which makes the termination wrongful. 4. The Claimant’s employment was not affected by redundancy. 5. The Claimant has not proved non remittance of his pension deductions and contribution 6. The Claimant has not adduced evidence to establish the quantum of his claim on leave allowance. 7. The Defendant shall pay cost to the Claimant assess at the sum of N300,000.00 (Three Hundred Thousand Naira) 8. All monetary sums payable under this judgment shall be settled within 30 days from the date of this judgment, failing which 10% interest per annum shall apply. 107. Judgment entered accordingly. Sanusi Kado, Judge. REPRESNTATION: Ofem Obete, Esq; for the Claimant.