Download PDF
REPRESENTATION Miss Ify Odoemena, for the claimant. There was no legal representation for any of the defendant. JUDGMENT The claimant commenced an action by a complaint against the defendant dated and filed on 2nd May 2012. The claimant is claiming for the following reliefs – 1. A declaration that the defendant’s action in disengaging the claimant without notice and no salary in lieu of notice is wrongful and illegal. 2. An order of this Court directing the defendant to pay the claimant the sum of N2,295,125.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Naira) being the claimant’s unpaid salaries and outstanding. 3. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as damages for the untold hardship that the claimant suffered as a result of the defendant's action. 4. The sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) the cost of this suit. Accompanying the complaint is the 27-paragraphed statement of facts dated 2nd May 2012, the list of witnesses, the list of documents to be relied on at the trial (all dated 2nd may 2012) together with copies of the documents frontloaded (Exhibits A, B, C1 – 13, D and E. Also filed as per the order of this Court is a 30-paragraphed claimant’s witness statement on oath dated and filed on 5th June 2012 and which is similar in terms to the statement of facts. The claimant deposed to the witness statement in his own account. The defendant did not enter any memorandum of appearance or file any defence process in this matter. When the matter first came up in this Court on 18th May 2012, the Court registrar reported that the defendant refused service of the processes on the flimsy excuse that its mail receiver was not around to receive the court processes whereupon the Court ordered that next time service is made on the defendant and it rejects the processes, the court processes are to be left at the premises of the defendant in accordance with Order 7 Rules 1(3), 6 and 11 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) 2007. All through the hearing of this matter, and despite the service of the respective hearing notices on the defendant, the defendant did not show up, nor was it represented by counsel. Order 9 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 enjoins a party served with a complaint and the accompanying originating processes and who intends to defend the action to file defence processes as provided therein. Order 9 recognizes the right of a defendant not to defend an action filed against him/her. And by Order 19 Rule 2, where the defendant is absent at the trial and no good cause is shown for the absence, the claimant may prove the claim in so far as the burden of proof lies upon him or her. This Rule accords with the minimal evidential requirement, which is to the effect that a plaintiff cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgment just because the other party did not adduce evidence before the trial court as held in Mr. Lawrence Azenabor v. Bayero University, Kano [2011] 25 NLLR (Pt. 70) 45 CA at 69 and Ogunyade v. Oshunkeye [2007] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1057) 218 SC at 247. It was as a result of all of this that the Court then permitted the claimant to argue its case even when the defendant did not appear or file any defence process. At the hearing of the matter on 12th July 2012, the claimant was his own witness. He adopted his written witness deposition as his evidence in chief. See also paragraph 29 of the claimant’s sworn deposition. From his sworn deposition, I notice that the claimant stated that he is “of No. 86 Ago Palace Way, Okota-Isolo Lagos”. Yet when he was asked in open court where he lives, the witness stated that he lives at No. 41 Owokoniron Close, Surulere, Lagos. And when asked when he moved in to this address, he answered that it was about 3 months ago. Now the claimant’s sworn deposition is dated and filed on 5th June 2012. If the claimant moved to his new address about 3 months ago (this would put the point of movement at about April 2012), how come he was deposing to a written statement on oath on 5th June 2012 that his address is different from the address he is supposed to have moved into? All of this immediately cast doubt on the credibility of the claimant as a witness. The 30-paragraphed claimant’s witness statement on oath is as follows – I, Mr. Jerry Ajiriogene Ovoh, male, Nigerian, Christian of No. 86 Ago Palace Way, Okota-Isolo Lagos do hereby make this witness deposition and state as follows: 1. That I am the claimant in this suit by virtue of which I am very conversant with the facts deposed to herein as they are within my personal knowledge. 2. That I am a Graduate and an Engineer from the University of Benin and was awarded with the Degree of B. ENG. (2nd Class Honours Upper Division). 3. The defendant is a Telecommunication Company incorporated under the Company and Allied Matters Act with head office at No. 8 Adeola Odeku Street Victoria Island, Lagos. 4. That I was offered an employment in the defendant’s Telecommunication Firm from January 2009 to December 2011 in the defendant’s Information Technology Department as a Trainee Engineer. 5. That I was employed by the defendant by a letter of appointment dated 15th day of January 2009 upon acceptance of same. 6. That upon being satisfied with my performance, conduct, loyalty and drive on the job during probation period, the defendant confirmed my appointment vide a letter dated 24th September 2009. 7. That the said letter of appointment stated the details of my salary, allowances as well as terms and conditions of my employment. 8. That further to above, my appointment letter sets out as terms and conditions that: “Your appointment may be terminated with a minimum of two weeks’ notice from either side during probation. After confirmation, the notice period for termination of service will be one month from either side”. 9. That the letter of appointment also pegged my annual remuneration to be N1,470,000 (One Million Four Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira only) this therefore brings my monthly salary to N122,500.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred naira). 10. That after the first month, instead of the N122,500.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred naira), I was paid the sum of N85,750.00 (Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira). 11. That further to the above, my pay slips were usually sent through the defendant’s website which I later discovered that they have been deleted on the defendant’s website when I made attempts to print/retrieve them. 12. That I enquired about the ‘mistake’ in the salary paid to me, and I was informed that it was not a mistake but that the Company was going through a little problem and that l should not worry as the balance will be paid in due time. 13. That the defendant paid me the said N85,750.00 (Eighty Five Thousand Seven Hundred and Fifty Naira) throughout the first six months of my employment with the defendant. 14. That after the first six months; from January 2009 – ¬June 2009 the defendant further reduced my salary to N66,150.00 (Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Naira) per month. 15. That I made further enquiry as to the reason for another reduction in my salary whereupon I was told that the defendant company was saving the balance for me and that at the end of that year, the I would be paid all the balance due to me. 16. That the defendant paid me the said N66,150.00 (Sixty Six Thousand One Hundred and Fifty Naira) per month for a period of year; from July 2009 – June 2010. 17. That after the said year which ended in June 2010, I was paid the sum of N235,200.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred Naira) as Housing allowance. 18. That the said sum of money; N235,200.00 (Two Hundred and Thirty Five Thousand Two Hundred Naira) paid to me in June 2010 as Housing allowance did not cover the Housing allowance as contained in the letter of employment, the said letter pegged N336,000.00 (Three Hundred and Thirty Six Thousand Naira) as Housing allowance. 19. That from July 2010 – March 2011, there was a further slash in my salary by the defendant as I was paid the sum of N63,087.50 (Sixty Three Thousand, and Eighty Seven Naira fifty Kobo) and I was given assurance that all my balance and outstanding due to me would be paid that I should just exercise some patience. 20. That from the month of April 2011 – December 2011, I was paid only once and that was in August 2011 when I was paid the sum of N63,087.50 (Sixty Three Thousand and Eighty seven Naira Fifty Kobo) and I was not paid anything for the rest of the months; April, May, June, July, September, October, and November, 2011. 21. That as l was still waiting for my salaries and outstanding balance to be paid to me, the defendant in another shocking move, without notice gave me a letter of disengagement of service dated December 5, 2011. 22. That the defendant did not give me any form of notice as to the disengagement, no salary in lieu of notice in compliance with terms and conditions of my contract of employment, and none of my outstanding balance was paid to me. 23. That in the defendant’s letter dated December 05, 2011 i.e. letter of disengagement, the defendant stated that my final entitlement will be computed and paid to me after a clearance report, however, I was never paid any sum even after being cleared. 24. That sequel to the above, I mode several overtures and moves to the management of the defendant for payment of the outstanding of my salaries and my final entitlements as stated in the defendant’s letter dated December 05, 2011 but all fell on deaf ears as the defendant was unmoved and nonchalant. 25. That having exhausted all media of overtures and entreaties to the defendant, I engaged the services of solicitors to demand for my entitlement whereupon the said solicitors wrote a letter dated March 05, 2012 to the defendant but the defendant still retained its callous disregard of my plight. 26. That for the posture and refusal of the defendant, I would not have engaged the services of solicitors and thereby would not have incurred professional fee of my solicitors in the sum of N250,000.00 (Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Naira) for the institution and prosecution of this matter for which I should be indemnified. 27. That the defendant’s action of wrongful termination of my employment has caused me substantial loss and emotional injuries. 28. That I urge this Honourable Court to grant my reliefs as per my complaint and statement of facts. 29. That I adopt this witness deposition as my evidence in this suit. 30. That I make this witness deposition in good faith believing same to be true and correct in accordance with Oath Law. After adopting his sworn deposition, the claimant was not cross-examined by the defendant given that the defendant did now show up throughout the trial. The Court proceeded and directed that the claimant file his written address. This he did. The written address is dated and filed 2nd October 2012. From the claimant’s final written address, the case of the claimant is as follows – 1. That he was lawfully employed by the defendant as a Trainee Engineer on 15th January 2009. In proof of the said employment, the claimant tendered a copy of his employment letter dated 15th January, 2009 which was admitted as Exhibit A. 2. That he was further issued a confirmation letter by the defendant dated 24th September 2009, in proof of same. The claimant tendered a copy of the said confirmation letter which was admitted as Exhibit B. 3. That throughout the claimant’s employment with the defendant, the defendant has never paid the claimant his complete salary as contained in his letter of employment and the defendant consistently reduced the claimant’s salary. In proof of the inconsistence, the claimant tendered some copies of his pay slips which he was able to print out from the defendant’s website before the defendant wiped them out from its website. The pay slips were admitted and marked Exhibits C1 – C13. 4. That he was not able to present all the pay slips because he did not envisage a situation such as this and by the time he was disengaged and he went back to print out the slips from the website, the defendant had wiped them out. 5. That throughout the months of April, May, June, July, September, October, and November 2011, the defendant did pay the claimant any salary. 6. That he was disengaged from his employment without notice or salary in lieu of notice. In proof of his unlawful disengagement, the claimant tendered a letter of disengagement dated 5th December 2011 which was admitted as Exhibit D. 7. That he made several demands for the payments of his unpaid salaries and outstandings and eventually contracted a solicitor who wrote a formal letter of demand dated 5th March 2012 and did not get any response from the defendant. In proof of the said demand, the claimant tendered a letter of demand dated 5th March 2012, which was admitted and marked Exhibit E. The claimant then framed four issues for the determination of this Court. They are – 1. Whether the claimant was lawfully employed by the defendant and entitled to be paid his full salary as contained in his employment letter. 2. Whether the claimant has proved his case against the defendant and entitled to all his unpaid salaries and outstandings. 3. Whether it was lawful for the defendant to disengage the claimant without a notice or salary in lieu of notice. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to damages for all the pain and suffering that the defendant’s action caused him. Regarding issue 1 i.e. whether the claimant was lawfully employed by the defendant and entitled to be paid his full salary as contained in his employment letter, the claimant submitted that his evidence vis-à-vis Exhibits A and B which are the letter of employment and the letter of confirmation of the claimant’s employment are very clear and concise to show that a binding contract of employment exists between the claimant and the defendant. That the binding nature of such contract is clearly illustrated by the Supreme Court in the case of UBN v. Ajagbule [2011] 12 (Pt. 11) MJSC 160 at para. 6. There the Supreme Court stated that – A written contract/agreement entered into by parties is binding on them. Where there is a disagreement between the parties to such written agreement on any particular point, the only credible evidence to resolve the claim is the written contract of the parties. That it is, therefore, clear that the claimant was legally employed to work for the defendant. Furthermore, that it must be stated that the above facts are not denied or traversed by the defendant, the defendant having not filed any defence to this action and it is trite that a fact not controverted is admitted in law, referring to NITEL v. Tugbiyele [2005] 3 NWLR (Pt. 912) 334 at 353 and Seven-Up Bottling Co. Ltd v. Adewale [2004] 4 NWLR (Pt. 862) 182 at 214 – 215. Predicated on the foregoing, the claimant urged the Court to find and hold that by Exhibits A and B the claimant has established that he was lawfully employed by the defendant. Further to the above, the said letter of employment clearly provided that the defendant would pay the claimant the sum of N1,470,000 (One Million, Four Hundred and Seventy Thousand Naira). That this therefore brings the claimant’s monthly salary to N122,500.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred naira). That the said N122,500.00 (One Hundred and Twenty Two Thousand Five Hundred naira) falls due to the claimant at the end of every month in accordance with the provision of section 15 of the Labour Act, but the defendant in total breach of the contract and that of the provision of the Labour Act constantly reduced the claimant’s salary without notice from the first month of his employment and to worsen the whole issue refused to pay the claimant for a continuous period of eight months. To the claimant, it is a common knowledge that a labourer is worthy of his wages and same should not be denied his lawful wages. That the defendant has not put before this Court any fact that the claimant did not work to earn his agreed salary. The claimant then submitted that he has shown that he was legally employed by the defendant and he is entitled to his full salary contained in the letter of employment. Issue 2 relates to the question whether the claimant has proved his case against the defendant and so is entitled to all his unpaid salaries and other outstanding benefits. The claimant submitted that he has shown by the pleadings, Exhibits A – E before this Court and by his witness statement on oath that – 1. He was legally employed by the defendant. 2. His letter of employment stated the amount the defendant was to pay him per annum. 3. He has also shown that from January 2009 to December 2011, being the month of his employment and the month his employment was terminated, the defendant had constantly reduced his salaries, and for 8 (eight) months did not pay him anything at all as salary. That the said evidence is unchallenged, uncontroverted and the position of the law is that it is deemed as admitted, referring to Ezeanah v. Atta [2004] 4 MJSC 1 at 7 where the Supreme Court held that evidence that is unchallenged and uncontroverted will be accepted by the Court. Also referred to the Court is Odebunmi v. Abdullahi [1997] 2 NWLR (Pt. 489) 529 and Oseni v. Bajulu [2009] 12 MJSC (Pt. 1) 30. That further to the above, the standard of proof required by virtue of section 134 of the Evidence Act 2011 is proof on a balance of probability; and this position of the Evidence Act 2011 was further illustrated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ezembe v. Ibeneme [2004] 10 MJSC 60 para. 13. The claimant then submitted that he has fully discharged the burden of proof on him by virtue of foregoing provisions and those of sections 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011 against the defendant and is entitled to his unpaid salaries and outstanding benefits from the defendant. Regarding issue 3 i.e. whether it was lawful for the defendant to disengage the claimant without a notice or salary in lieu of notice, the claimant referred to paragraph 3 of the claimant’s employment letter dated 15th January 2009, which states that – Your appointment may be terminated with a minimum of two weeks’ notice from either side during probation. After confirmation, the notice period for termination of service will be one month from either side. To the claimant, it is apparent from the foregoing that the defendant is required to give the claimant one month notice as his appointment has been confirmed. Furthermore, that section 11 of Labour Act, also provides to the effect that either party to a contract of employment may terminate the contract by issuing a notice to that effect or payment in lieu of notice. The claimant then submitted that the defendant’s termination of the claimant’s appointment without notice or any form of payment in lieu of notice is illegal and unlawful, praying the Court so to hold. On issue 4 i.e. whether the claimant is entitled to damages for all the pain and suffering that the defendant’s action caused him, the claimant submitted that he suffered both emotionally, psychologically and financially as a result of the defendant’s inconsistency in paying his salaries and non-payment of the claimant’s salary by the defendant for a prolonged period of eight (8) months. Furthermore, that as a result of the defendant’s action, the claimant could no longer pay his house rent and was forced to vacate his apartment and has been squatting with friends ever since. Moreover, that the Supreme Court in determining the measure of damages in the case of C & C Construction v. Okhai [2004] 2 MJSC 136 para. 3 stated that – Damages for pain and suffering can only be susceptible to approximated monetary evaluation. The measure of damages can only be determined by what an enlightened conscience of tribunal of justice can reasonably determine as the amount that would compensate for pain and suffering of the plaintiff. It should be based on the circumstances of the case and the dynamics of social milieu prevailing at the time. The claimant also referred to the case of UBN v. Ajagbule [2011] 12 (Pt. 11) MJSC 159 para. 3 where the Supreme Court reiterated the fact that the quantum of such damages need not be pleaded and proved and that the award is quantified by what in the opinion of a reasonable person is considered adequate loss or inconvenience which flows naturally, as generally presumed by law, from the act or conduct of the defendant. The claimant then submitted that he is entitled to damages for the suffering and inconveniences which the defendant’s action has caused him. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to grant all his prayers in the complaint. I have carefully considered the processes and submission in this matter. I have already hinted that the credibility of the claimant as a witness is suspect. I shall, therefore, rely more on the documents frontloaded and marked as the Exhibits in this case in arriving at a decision. In any event, the claimant in his sworn deposition testified in paragraph 11 that his pay slips were usually sent through the defendant’s website which he later discovered have been deleted on the defendant’s website when he made attempts to print/retrieve them. Now, Exhibits C1 – C13 are copies of pay slips for the months 30/11/2009, 31/12/2009, 31/01/2010, 28/02/2010, 31/03/2010, 30/04/2010, 31/05/2010, 31/06/2010, 31/07/2010, 31/08/2010, 31/01/2011, 28/02/2011 and 31/03/2011. By Exhibit A, the claimant was offered appointment by the defendant. I am surprised that the claimant can produce his pay slips for the months listed above (the first being 30/11/2009) and yet he cannot produce his very first pay slip that of February 2009. I am not satisfied with his explanation that the defendant deleted all his pay slips from the website. Exhibit A is the appointment offer to the claimant, which appointment is to take effect from 19th January 2009. The claimant was expected to send in his acceptance letter. Although there is no evidence of this before me, Exhibit B is the letter of confirmation wherein the claimant was confirmed as an employee of the defendant with effect from 19th July 2009, exactly 6 months after his offer of appointment took effect as per Exhibit A. it should be noted that Exhibit A placed the claimant on probation for 6 months after which he would be due for confirmation if his performance was satisfactory. With combination of Exhibits A, B, C1 – C13 (copies of the pay slips) and D (the letter of disengagement from service), I find and hold that the claimant was a confirmed employee of the defendant. His employment took effect from 19th January 2009 and was terminated with effect from 1st December 2011 vide Exhibit D, a letter dated 5th December 2011. The letter of appointment put his annual remuneration at N1,470,000 broken down into – Basic Salary N420,000.00 Allowances Transportation N252,000.00 Housing N336,000.00 Dressing N210,000.00 Utility N84,000.00 Lunch N84,000.00 Education Subsidy N84,000.00 In addition to other terms and conditions, Exhibit A goes on to provide that after confirmation, either party may terminate the employment contract upon giving one month’s notice to the other. Exhibit A is silent on payment in lieu of notice. So when Exhibit D dated 5th December 2011, disengaged the claimant with effect from 1st December 2011, the terms and conditions of employment as per Exhibit A was breached by the defendant; and I so find and hold. The defendant’s action in disengaging the claimant without notice and no salary in lieu of notice was, therefore wrongful and unlawful; and I so hold. The case of Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 held that where there is a contract of service, there is an implied term that the contract can only be terminated by reasonable notice; and what is reasonable is always dependent on the nature of the contract and status of the employee in the establishment. Hence, the higher the position held by the servant and the larger the salary the longer will be the notice required to put his contract at an end. However, the case of WAEC v. Oshionebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1994) 258 CA went on to hold that a notice of resignation is effective, not from the date of the letter, or from the date of any purported acceptance, but from the date on which the letter was received by the employer or his agent. That tendering of a letter of resignation by an employee carries with it the right to leave the service automatically without any benefit subject to his paying any of his indebtedness to his employer; while giving of notice of retirement carries with it the right to be paid a pension or gratuity, but it does not confer the right to withdraw from service immediately and automatically. The case is, however, silent on where it is the employer who terminated the employment contract with immediate effect. Since legal reasoning supports the view that in law as in logic, the converse of a proposition commands the same respect as the proposition itself (see B. S. Markesinis and D. F. Deakin – Tort Law (Clarendon Press. Oxford) 1994, 3rd ed. at p. 41), my take here is that the employer cannot likewise just terminate an employment relationship with immediate effect without corresponding monetary repercussions; for what is good for the goose should also be good for the gander. The claimant in the instant case is, therefore, entitled to monetary compensation for the termination of his employment with immediate effect contrary to the terms of his contract of employment (Exhibit A). Even though Exhibit A is silent on the issue of payment in lieu of notice, since it provides that the notice period is one month, it follows that the payment in lieu of notice shall equally be one month’s salary. Since Exhibit A provides that the annual remuneration shall be N1,470,000, this figure when divided by 12 months comes to N122,500. I, therefore, find and hold the defendant liable to pay to the claimant the sum of N122,500 as payment for disengaging the claimant without giving the appropriate termination notice. The next issue is whether the claimant has made out a case for an order of this Court directing the defendant to pay to him the sum of N2,295,125.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Naira) being the claimant’s unpaid salaries and outstanding benefits. The claimant’s case here is that if N1,470,000 represents his annual salary, then if it is divided by 12 months, his monthly salary ought to be N122,500. That for the first 6 months of his employment, he was paid N85,750 as salary per month. I have indicated earlier that this period is not covered by the pay slips frontloaded as exhibits. I shall therefore discountenance this period in the assessment of the entitlements of the claimant. Secondly, in arriving at N122,500 as salary per month, the claimant did not factor in the PAYE tax deductible from his monthly salary. A look at Exhibits C1 – C13 will show that the claimant received the following as monthly salary with PAYE tax deducted – MONTH NET PAY PAYE DEDUCTED OUTSTANDING SUM 30/11/2009 N64,925 N1,225 N56,350 31/12/2009 N64,925 N1,225 N56,350 31/01/2010 N64,925 N1,225 N56,350 28/02/2010 N64,925 N1,225 N56,350 31/03/2010 N64,925 N1,225 N56,350 30/04/2010 N64,925 N1,225 N56,350 31/05/2010 N89,425 N1,225 N56,3501 30/06/2010 N300,125 N1,225 N56,3502 31/07/2010 N61,923.75 N1,163.75 N59,412.50 31/08/2010 N61,923.75 N1,163.75 N59,412.50 31/01/2011 N61,923.75 N1,163.75 N59,412.50 28/02/2011 N61,923.75 N1,163.75 N59,412.50 31/03/2011 N61,923.75 N1,163.75 N59,412.50 1For the month 31/05/2010, a leave allowance of N24,000 was paid as part of the monthly salary. Exhibit A (the appointment letter) does not have a term or provision or figure on leave allowance. So I subtracted the N24,000 before arriving at N56,350 as outstanding sum. 2For the month 30/06/2010, housing allowance of N235,200 was paid instead of the N336,000 provided for in Exhibit A. Now, when the claimant averaged his monthly salary at N122,500 this was on the premise that the N336,000 would be spread equally over the 12 months of the year. This means that in our calculation of the outstanding sums as the relate to Exhibits C1 – C13 above the N336,000 housing allowance has already been factored in the sums regarding Exhibits C1 – C12; and Exhibit C13 has also factored in the fraction of the N336,000 which is N28,000 per month in that amount. What all of this means is that despite the payment of N235,200 in month 30/06/2010, and since I am only using the documents before me for purposes of assessing the claimant’s entitlements, there is no need to add the difference between N336,000 and N235,200 (which is N100,800) in the said assessment. Adding up the outstanding sums regarding exhibits C1 – C13 comes up to N747,862.50 only. I, therefore, find and hold that what the claimant has proved as his entitlement is N747,862.50 (Seven Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, eight Hundred and Sixty-Two Naira, Fifty Kobo), not the N2,295,125.00 (Two Million, Two Hundred and Ninety-Five Thousand, One Hundred and Twenty-Five Naira) the claimant claims as unpaid salaries and outstanding benefits. Next, the claimant claims for N1,000,000 as damages for untold hardship and N250,000 as cost of the suit. Beyond the deposition in paragraph 27 of his sworn deposition, where the claimant said the termination of his employment caused him substantial loss and emotional injuries, and paragraph 26 where he said that he incurred N250,000 as professional fee of his solicitors in the institution and prosecution of this matter, there is no other evidence to substantiate these claims. Counsel to the claimant, however, argued that quantum of damages for pain and suffering need not be pleaded and proved but did not say if this is true of employment cases. Section 19 (d) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006, however, permits this Court where necessary to make any appropriate order, including an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated by the NIC Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear. Yet given that I had earlier expressed doubts as to the credibility of the claimant as a witness, I am not inclined to finding in his favour his claims for substantial loss and emotional injuries. As for his claim for the claim for professional fee, this was not substantiated or proved. I, therefore, decline to give any verdict in that regard. On the whole and for the reasons given above, I order as follows – 1. The claimant is to be paid by the defendant the sum of N747,862.50 (Seven Hundred and Forty-Seven Thousand, eight Hundred and Sixty-Two Naira, Fifty Kobo) being the outstanding remuneration regarding the claims on Exhibits C1 – C13. 2. The defendant is liable to pay to the claimant the sum of N122,500 as payment for disengaging the claimant without giving the appropriate termination notice. 3. Cost is put at Fifty Thousand Naira (N50,000) only payable by the defendant to the claimant. 4. All sums are payable within 30 days from the date of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip