Download PDF
By a complaint dated 21st April 2011, the claimants claimed against two defendants (the name of the 2nd defendant was, however, struck out by order of Court on May 23, 2012) the following reliefs – a) A declaration that the 1st defendant’s letters of 23/04/10 titled, “Organizational Restructuring” purportedly terminating the employments of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants was wrongful, illegal, null and void and, therefore, of no effect. b) A declaration that the purported termination of employments of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants by the 1st defendant without contractual and/or statutory notices and without payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice immediately upon such purported termination of employment on 23/04/10 was wrongful, illegal, null and void and, therefore, of no effect. c) Sequel to (b) above, a declaration that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants are entitled to all salaries, allowances, entitlements at the rate of payments on the 23/04/10 and from the said date to the time the employments of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants are properly, regularly, lawfully and legally determined in accordance with the contract of employment and/or the Labour Act by the 1st defendant. d) A declaration that the refusal of the 1st defendant to pay the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants all their outstanding salaries, allowances and other entitlements was wrongful, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional. e) An order of Court commanding the defendants to immediately pay an aggregate sum of N4,592,450.03k being the total outstanding entitlements of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants until final judgment is delivered in this case and at the rate of 7% till the judgment sum is finally liquidated. f) An injunction restraining all Nigerian banks particularly the First Bank of Nigeria Plc and including the Central bank of Nigeria from honouring the defendant’s financial instruments in form of commercial bills, papers, orders, cheques, banker’s cheque/draft on all defendant’s account until all outstanding entitlements to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants and consequential damages thereof are finally liquidated. g) A sum of N5 Million being general damages payable to each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants individually for wrongful, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional termination of their employments without notice and with no immediate payment in lieu of notice on 23/04/10. h) In the alternative, a sum of N5 Million being general damages payable to each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants individually for wrongful, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional termination of their employments 23/04/10. i) A sum of N5 Million being general damages payable to the 1st claimant for wrongful, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutional detention of his total entitlements, breach of contract, detinue and negligence by the 1st defendant to pay his total entitlements since 25/04/10. j) An order of Court for the cost of this action against the defendants. In reacting to the claims of the claimants, the defendant entered appearance vide a memorandum of appearance dated 29th June 2011 signed by Nwaofor Kennedy Obinna of ABFR & Co.. The defendant also filed a preliminary objection dated 28th June 2011 and signed by Gerard Onyiuke of ABFR & Co. praying this Court for inter alia an order striking out the suit. In a considered ruling on 25th January 2012, the Court struck out the preliminary objection and ordered that the matter proceed to trial. On the day trial commenced, neither counsel to nor the defendant was in Court. On the authority of Order 19 Rule 2 of the National Industrial Council 2007, the Court permitted the Claimants to proceed with and prove their case. While the claimants called in three witnesses (Olukayode Abimbola Thomas as CW1, Miss Opeyemi Nyela Olus as CW2 and Olusola Richard Babarinsa as CW3), the defendant called none. It was after the evidence of these three witnesses was taken that the defendant filed a motion praying the Court to strike out the name of the 2nd defendant. The claimants did not object to this motion and so on May 23, 2012 the Court struck out the name of the 2nd defendant. Other than the preliminary objection and the motion for striking out the name of the 2nd defendant, the defendant did not file any other defence process. In fact, throughout the remaining part of the hearing of the case, the defendant did not file any other defence process or make any other appearance in Court. The case of the claimants going by the unchallenged evidence before the Court is that they were employees of the defendant. During their employment, the defendant did not regularly pay them their salaries; and when their employment was finally terminated by the defendant, they were owed various months’ salary and allowances. The unchallenged testimony of CW1 (a journalist of over 15 years who worked with the Nation Newspaper) is that until April 2010, the defendant used to be his employer. That sometime in 2008, he was invited by the struck out 2nd defendant (as owner of the defendant) to work for him. He said he wanted to set a newspaper that will change the face of journalism in Nigeria. After much persuasion, he eventually agreed to work for him and he started work with the defendant in October 2008. That he was employed by the defendant as the Sports Editor. He was with the defendant up to April 2010. While working with the defendant, he had 9 reporters under him. In April 2010, 4 of the reporters alongside other staff were sacked without reference to him. When he asked the Editor, Kadaria Ahmed, he said that CW1 was not affected and so should come to work. CW1 then said that he could not work under such conditions and so he sent an email resigning his appointment. CW1 continued that when they started work, their salary was regular. But at some point, salaries were owed ranging up to 3 months. That they noticed irregular salaries from the middle of 2009. He went on that at the point of resigning, he was owned salary, bonus and pension remittance for which the defendant vide a letter acknowledged and promised to pay, referring to document No. 3 in their list of documents frontloaded. That out of the moneys owned to him, the defendant paid to him only N350,000. CW1 then prayed the Court to order the defendant to pay him his money. CW2 (a reporter of almost a year and half with the National Mirror Newspaper at the time of giving evidence) also testified that the defendant was her employer until April 2010. That she joined the service of the defendant in November 2008 as a Sports Reporter. She was, however, sacked by the defendant without notice or payment in lieu of notice. That at the point of her sack, the defendant owed her salary and allowances, the payment of which were very irregular when we were still in service. That she is in court to pray the court to order the defendant to pay to her all her entitlements as well as damages for her unlawful sack. She acknowledged, however, that payment in lieu of notice was made to her vide a cheque on the day she was sacked. CW3 (a journalist with African Times Network since March 1, 2011) testified that the defendant was his employer between November 17, 2008 and April 23, 2010. That he was a reporter with the defendant. He started out with the defendant as a metro reporter, meaning a reporter who covers Lagos metropolis. Later, he was transferred to the sports desk, where he was until his sack without notice by the defendant; he was, however, paid in lieu of notice. That at the point of termination, he was owned by the defendant about N700, 000 in salary and allowances. Of this sum, he was only paid about N80, 000. He is in court so that the Court can order the defendant to pay him all his entitlements. The claimants’ written address is dated 27th September 2012. To the claimants, they tendered the following documents – i. Exhibit T1 – Letter of employment dated 17/09/08. ii. Exhibit T2 – Letter of confirmation dated 02/09/09. iii. Exhibit T3 – Letter of acceptance of 1st claimant’s resignation dated 05/05/10. iv. Exhibit T4 – 2nd & 3rd claimants’ letter of employment dated 03/11/08. v. Exhibit T5 – 2nd & 3rd claimants’ letter of confirmation dated 12/05/09. vi. Exhibit T6 – 2nd – 6th claimants’ letter of Termination of Employment dated 23/04/10. vii. Exhibit T7 – Defendant’s letter on 2nd – 6th claimants’ outstanding entitlements dated 05/05/10. viii. Exhibit T8 – the 3rd claimant’s ARM pensions RSA fund statement dated 30/03/10. The claimants then submitted that where evidence led is admissible, relevant, not contradicted and not discredited by cross-examination, a court can legally rely on it, referring the Court to the case of Obmiami Brick & Stone (Nig.) Ltd. v. A.C.B. Ltd [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 229) 260. That the call for oral evidence was to open the window of truth through which the Court can gauge the facts of each party, but that the defendant failed to meet this sacred challenge of truth confronting truth. In the circumstances, the claimants submitted that their evidence is deemed unchallenged and, therefore, same ought to be accepted as admitted by the defendant without much ado as the truth of the account of the breach of the claimants’ contact of employment. That the defendant having failed to discharge its burden, it is bound to take the consequence, that is, the claimants’ documents and testimonies, which are unchallenged are to be deemed admitted and this court is at liberty to act on them, citing the Supreme Court case of Agbakoba v. INEC & 2 ors [2009] 12 SC (Pt. III) 171 at 223 per Chukwuma-Eneh, JSC and Agbaje v. Ibru Sea Foods Ltd [1972] 5 SC 50 at 53. The claimants continued that where the claimant’s evidence has not been effectively countered, the Court is entitled to find that such party has proved his case, referring to International Nigerbuild Construction Co. Ltd & anor v. Giwa [2002] FWLR (Pt. 107) 131 at 1354 CA. The claimants further submitted that the unchallenged evidence would stand. That where there is no scintilla or iota of evidence to support a position, the question of resolving a controversy would not arise, citing Jolayemi & ors v. Alhaji Alaoye & anor [2004] All FWLR (Pt. 217) 584 at 603 – 645 SC. That the Supreme Court in SPDC Nig. Ltd v. Edamkue & 2 ors [2009] 6 – 7 SC 74 at 111 held per Fabiyi, JSC (citing Omoregbe v. Lawani [1980] 3 – 4 SC 108 at 117) that “it is the law that uncontroverted and unchallenged evidence stands and should be accepted”. And that Mukhtar, JSC (as she then was) held in 2011 in Ajagbe v. Idowu [2011] 6 – 7 SC (Pt. IV) 74 at 97, that “it is trite law that evidence of a fact that is not in dispute and that is relevant to a matter in controversy is good and credible evidence that can be relied upon for the determination of the issue in controversy”. The claimants then urged the Court to hold that their evidence is good, credible, believable and acceptable. The claimant went to frame one issue for the determination of the Court, namely – Whether or not the claimants are entitled to their respective terminal benefits and other reliefs sought as pleaded in their statement of claim dated 21/4/11. As a starting point, the claimant submitted that a contract can either be in writing or made orally, and is binding on the parties to the contract. That it is trite law that a party to an agreement/contract is bound by the terms of the contract and cannot renege on same, referring this Court to the authorities of U.B.N v. Fajebe Foods Ltd [1988] 6 NWLR (Pt. 554) 380 at 406 B – C and Nneji v. Zakhem Co. (Nig.) Ltd [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 297 SC. The claimants went on to contend that, considering the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court in order to do justice between the parties must first and foremost resolve and decide whether or not there was any contract guiding the claimants’ employment with the defendant as well as the nature of such contract before the defendant terminated their employment wrongfully and without any payment of their entitlements. Put differently, for the claimants not to be entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in their statement of claim, the defendant must have proved before this Court, by oral or documentary evidence that there was no contract between itself and the claimants before the issuance of the employment letter (“letter of employment”) and purported termination thereof. In determining this issue, the claimants drew the Court’s attention to what is meant by a contract of employment as defined by the Supreme Court in the case of Shena Security v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd & 2 ors (2008) 4 – 5 SC (Pt. 11) 117 at 128 – 129 paras 25 – 30 where I. T. Muhammad, JSC stated as follow – A contract of employment means any agreement whether oral or written, express or implied, whereby one person agrees to employ another as a worker and that other person agrees to serve the employer as a worker. That is by the definition of the Labour Act. (Cap. 198) LFN, 1990, which applies to workers, strictly defined to the exclusion of the management staff. The claimants also referred the Court to the definition a worker under section 91 of the Labour Act, which is “any person who has entered into or works under a contract with an employer whether the contract is for manual or clerical work or is expressed or implied, or oral or written and whether it is a contract of service or a contract personally to execute any work or labour” To the claimant, where there is a dispute as to which kind of contract the parities enter, there are factors which usually guide a court of law to arrive at a right conclusion. For instance, if payment is made by way of “wages” or “salaries’ it is an indicative that the contract is one of employment, referring to the case of Shena Security v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd & 2 ors (supra). Also, where the hours of work are fixed, it is a contract of employment, referring to Milway (Southern) Ltd v. Willshire [1978] 1 RLR 322. That in applying the above criteria of law to this suit, it is manifest that the contract between the claimants and the defendant in respect of their employment is a contract of employment having been reduced into a formal one i.e. writing and signing. Sequel to the above, that it is factual that there exist a contract of employment between the claimants and the defendant as evident in Exhibit T1 dated 17/09/2008 and Exhibit T7 dated 03/11/2008 both pleaded in paragraphs 10 – 12 of claimants’ statement of claim. The next issue to be resolved according to the claimants is the nature of the terms of contract between themselves and the defendant. In addressing this point, the claimants called in aid the state of pleadings of the parties. To the claimants, it is no doubt, and this is evident in paragraphs 10 – 28 of the claimants’ statement of claim, that the defendant offered employment to claimants on certain terms and conditions as vividly reflected in their letters of employment and the Staff Handbook. Therefore, there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the claimants were employed by the defendant based on certain terms and conditions between the parties. In other words, the defendant admitted that the claimants were employed by it on a contract terms of employment. That the only outstanding question then is: “what is the state of pleading of the parties on whether such terms and conditions of employment was duly complied with in determination of same and withholding of claimants’ entitlements thereof?” To the claimant, before answering this question, it is necessary to point out the requirement of the law with respect to pleadings. That it is settled that “every allegation of fact in any pleadings if not specifically denied in the pleadings of the opposite party shall be taken as admitted except as against a person under legal disability”. That “one thing that is clear from the proceedings in this suit is that the defendant has not joined issues with the claimants on the discrepancies in the claimants’ averments in the statement of claim. Simply put, no attempt has been made by the defendant to plead specifically or generally by filling a statement of defence in answer to the claimants’ statement of claim and has always been represented up to this material time”. The claimant then submitted that where averments in the statement of claim have not been traversed by the defence, they are accordingly presumed admitted; otherwise it would amount to defeating the object of pleading to settle the issues upon which the case between the parties is to be contested, citing Ukaegbu v. Ugoji ]1991] 7 SC (Pt. 11) 82, [1991] 6 NWLR (Pt. 196) 127 and Omuka v. Omugui [1992] 3 NWLR (Pt. 230) 393. The claimant referred the Court to the Supreme Court in the case of Salzgitter Stahl GMBH v. Tunji Dosunmu Ind. Ltd [2010] 3 – 5 SC (Pt. 11) 54 at 77 para 5 where the Court held that “from the foregoing reasoning, therefore, the Trial Court and again rightly in my view held in the circumstances that the defendant must be deemed to have admitted that it has imported the items of the consignments pleaded in paragraph 3 of the Amended Statement of Claim in that a fact not specifically traversed is presumed admitted. See Samson Ajibode v. Mayowa & anor [1978] 9 – 10 SC 1 at 6; [1978] 9 – 10 SC (Reprint) and Eko Odume v. Ume Nnadu & ors [1964] 1 ANLR 329”. The claimant then went on to reproduce to reproduce the facts of the case as pleaded in paragraphs 10 – 17 of the statement of claim, which are as follows – i. On 17th November 2008, the defendant employed the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants as Reporters of the defendant after successfully completing an intensive journalism training from 13th October 2008 to 1st November 2008 before deploying each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants. ii. Upon satisfactory completion of all necessary requirements of their employments, the defendant confirmed the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants’ employments vide letters dated 12th May 2009. iii. From or about January 2009 to April 2009, the defendant became constrained, incapable and unable to pay its staff salaries including that of the 1st – 6th claimants. iv. Despite the financial constraints of the defendant, none of its employees, with the 1st – 6th claimants inclusive, was complaining and the claimants worked diligently with total dedication and loyalty during the needless difficult period. v. Without prior notice, as required contractually and statutorily, and without taking the 1st claimant into confidence as one of the leaders of the defendant’s team, on 23rd April 2010, the defendant called the 2nd – 6th claimants to pick letters terminating their employment with immediate effect. vi. On the said 23rd April 2010 when the defendant purportedly terminated the employments of the 2nd – 6th claimants, the defendant owed the 2nd – 6th claimants four (4) months salaries and only paid April 2009’s salaries without paying a month’s salary in lieu of notice as required contractually and statutorily. To the claimants, these set of facts were not denied by the defendant. The defendant did not file any statement of defence, did not call evidence or tender any document in their defence/in response to the suit against it. That the entire averments in the statement of claim were neither generally nor specifically denied by the defendant. These facts, in accordance with the principle of law and the rule of pleadings are deemed admitted by the defendant. It is trite law that where a defendant fails to deny the averments in statement of claim, such defendant is deemed to have admitted those averments, citing Ansa v. Ntuk [2009] 9 NWLR (Pt. 1147) 557 CA. That going by the above principle of law that when a defendant fails to file a statement of defence to facts pleaded by the claimant, such a failure is surely recognized as an admission of those facts pleaded and the defendant will thereafter be estopped from denying the issues or facts pleaded by the claimant, referring to A.G. Abia v. A.G. Federation [2005] 12 NWLR (Pt. 940) 452. The claimants continued that the situation in A.G. Abia v. A.G. Federation is not in any way different from the situation in this case having regard to failure of the defendant in this case to file its statement of defence to claimants’ averments in their statement of claim despite its representation up to this material time. Even though the defendant had not laid any denial in respect of claimants’ averments in this case, one would have expected that the defendant would file at least a statement of defence to the copious averments of the claimants detailing the terms agreed to before the claimants’ employment with the defendant, the wrongful termination as well as alleged withholding of claimants’ arrears of salaries, allowances and entitlements illegally. But the defendant failed to do this. To the claimants, the implication of this failure, as the Supreme Court has pointed in A.G. Abia v. AG Federation and as applicable to this case, is that the claimant is estopped from denying that – i. On 17th November 2008, the defendant employed the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants’ as Reporters of the defendant after successfully completing an intensive journalism training from 13th October 2008 to 1st November 2008 before deploying each of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants. ii. Upon satisfactory completion of all necessary requirements of their employments, the defendant confirmed the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants’ employments vide letters dated 12th May 2009. iii. From or about January 2009 to April 2009, the defendant became constrained, incapable and the unable to pay its staff salaries including that of the 1st – 6th claimants. iv. Despite the financial constraints of the defendant, none of its employees, with the 1st – 6th Claimants inclusive, was complaining and the claimants worked diligently, with total dedication and loyalty during the needless difficult period. v. Without prior notice, as required contractually and statutorily and without taking the 1st claimant into confidence as one of the leaders of the defendant’s team, on 23rd April 2010 the defendant called the 2nd – 6th claimants to pick letters terminating their employment with immediate effect. vi. On the said 23/04/2010 when the defendant purportedly terminated the employments of 2nd – 6th claimant, the defendant owed the 2nd – 6th claimants four months salaries and only paid April 2009’s salaries without paying a month’s salary in lieu of notice as required contractually and statutorily. vii. In paragraph 3 of the letter of 23/04/2010, the defendant terminated the employment of the 2nd – 6th claimants with immediate effect without a month’s salary in lieu of notice, but the defendant only casually remarked in paragraph 4 of the letter of “23/04/05” that: “and any payments in lieu of notice will be communicated to you on or before May 7th, 2010”. The above facts which to the claimants are deemed admitted by the defendant and the evidence of the claimants laid before the Court completely establish that the defendant wrongfully terminated claimants’ employment without notice and illegally withheld their entitlements not minding the consequent and resulting emotional, financial, pecuniary losses and damages caused to the claimants and their respective family members. On this basis, the claimants submitted that the claimants’ claims be granted since the defendant has no defence to the claimants’ claim. The claimants went on that despite the defendant’s financial constraint to pay staff salaries during the needless difficult period, they did not complain; instead they worked diligently, with total dedication and loyalty but all that defendant could pay in return for the claimants’ services is termination of their employment unlawfully and refusal to pay their entitlements/allowances despite being able to meet up with its top directors’ financial requirements continuously. With this, the claimants argued that one cannot but agree completely with them that the defendant has refused and neglected to pay the claimants’ entitlements and allowances not mindful of the pecuniary losses and damages to the claimants. The claimants continued that the outstanding question is whether such terms and conditions of employment as expressly indicated in the claimants’ letter of employment was duly complied with in the determination of same and withholding of the claimants’ entitlements unlawfully thereof. The claimants then submitted that every contract of employment contains the terms and conditions guiding such contract, referring to Longe v. First Bank of Nigeria Plc [2010] 2 – 3 SC (Pt. 111) 61 at 125 para 35 where the Supreme Court stated as follows – I must chip in at this stage that every contract of employment contains the terms and conditions that will regulate the employment relationship such as terms on determination, notice, wages, benefits are usually contained in the expressed contract of service or implied into it by common law and custom, the nature of employment generally affect the terms of the contract of employment. That the Supreme Court further stated in paragraph 15 of the above cited authority that “in the master and servant relationship, the master has unfettered right to terminate the employment but in doing so he must comply with the procedure stipulated in their contract….” To the claimants, it is trite law that where a contract of employment makes provisions for termination, the procedure must be followed duly and accordingly. That the Supreme Court applied this principle in the case of Shena Security v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd & 2 ors (supra) where in the words of I. T. Muhammad, JSC at page 141 paragraph 15 – 20 the Court said – Where a contract of services provides for termination by either party giving a specified and pre-agreed period of notice, this poses no problem at all as to how the contract comes to an end when either party exercises his right to give notice of intention to bring the contractual relationship to an end. This, in fact, tallies with the stipulation of section 11(i) of the Labour Act, Cap. 198, LFN, 1990…. In connection with the above, that the claimants in this case were appointed by the letters, Exhibits T1 to T4 respectively, and these said letters were attached with a document titled terms and conditions of employment detailing length of notice for termination of their employment, remuneration, allowances and other entitlements and their likes. It is, therefore, unlawful for the defendant to have adopted a wrongful procedure by giving immediate termination of the claimants’ employments without any recourse to their contract of employment, urging the Court to hold same as unlawful. The claimant continued that the court must have recourse to the documentary evidence before it to determine the veracity of oral testimonies of the witnesses and in order to come to a correct conclusion in this suit. The rationale for this rule, according to the claimants is to be found in Aiki v. Idowu [2006] 9 NWLR (Pt. 989) 50 at 650 A – C where it was stated that – Documents…are more reliable and authentic than words from the vocal cord of man as they are neither transient nor subject to distortion and misinterpretation but remain permanent and indelible through the ages. That the documents before this Court, which originated from the defendant itself, establish that there was a contract of employment between the parties and same was not contradicted by the defendant. That the documents speak for themselves. That the documentary evidence to be considered is the claimants’ statement of claim and the accompanying Exhibits particularly Exhibits T1 and T4 respectively. The claimants went on that in the absence of any credible evidence upon which the defendant can rely to support its defence, this Court is bound to only take the claimants’ evidence as established, unchallenged and un-impeached, citing Consolidated Breweries Plc v. Asiowieren [2001] 15 NWLR (Pt. 736) 424 at 456 A – D. To the claimants, it is trite law that where two parties have entered into a contract which one of them has breached, the damages which the other party ought to receive should be such as may fairly and reasonably be contemplated at the time of entering into the contract as the probable result, citing Hadley v. Baxendale (1854) Exch. 341. The claimants then urged the Court to hold that the claimants’ aggregate sum of N4,592,450.03k being total outstanding entitlements of all the claimants were in reasonable contemplation of both parties at the time of the contract and, therefore, the defendant is liable to pay same. That the Court of Appeal had no difficulty in following the principle laid down by the English Court in Hadley v. Baxendale in the case of UBA v. Folarin (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 818) 18 CA, where it enunciated further that if the special circumstances under which the contract was actually made were communicated and thus known to both parties, the damages resulting from the breach of such contract, which they should reasonably contemplate, would be the amount of injury that would ordinarily flow from a breach of contract under these special circumstances so known and communicated. On the basis of all the above submissions, the claimants urged the Court to resolve the case in its entirety in favour of the claimants and grant the claimants’ reliefs with substantial cost against the defendant. In conclusion, the claimants urged the Court to hold as follows – 1. That there was a contract of employment between the claimants and the defendant wherein the defendant agreed that either party shall give one month notice of determination to the other. 2. That the purported termination of the 2nd – 6th claimants’ employment without contractual or statutory notices and without payment of a month’s salary in lieu of notice as required in their contract of employment was wrongful, illegal, null and void and, therefore, of no effect. 3. That the claimants are entitled to all salaries, allowances, entitlements at the rate of payments on the 23/04/10 and from the said date to the time the employments of the 2nd – 6th claimants are properly, regularly, lawfully and legally determined in accordance with the contract of employment by the defendant. 4. That the refusal of the defendant to pay the claimants’ entitlements and allowances was wrongful, unlawful, illegal and unconstitutionally. 5. That the defendant immediately pays an aggregate sum of N4,592,450.03k being total outstanding entitlements of all the claimants admitted by the defendant in Exhibit T7 dated 05/05/10 to each of the claimants with interest thereon at the rate of 21% from the 25/04/10 and 23/04/10 in respect of 1st claimant and the 2nd – 6th claimants respectively. 6. A sum of N5 Million Naira being general damages payable to each of the 2nd – 6th claimants for wrongful, unlawful and illegal termination of their employment without notice or salary in lieu of notice. 7. A sum of N5 Million Naira being general damages payable to the 1st claimant for wrongful detention of his total entitlements since 25/04/10 and breach of contract. 8. An order for the cost of this action against the defendant. In considering the merit of this case, I must point out as noted earlier in this judgment, the defendant did not defend this action beyond the preliminary objection it filed which was, however, dismissed in a considered ruling. In fact as soon as the defendant’s application to have the name of the 2nd defendant struck succeeded, the defendant stopped coming to Court in this matter. Technically, therefore, even though this case approximates to one that is undefended, it must be pointed out that the defendant had all the opportunity in the world to defend that action but chose not to. In this regard, I agree with the submission of the claimants that their averments in terms of their statement of fact, the proof of evidence in the nature of their oral testimony and documents frontloaded and admitted in this case must be taken as uncontroverted. This, however, does not in any way take away the duty imposed on the claimants to prove their case in accordance with the minimal evidence rule. In Attorney-General of Osun State v. Nigeria Labour Congress (Osun State Council) & 2 ors unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/275/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on December 19, 2012 this Court held as follows – 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, therefore, 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, of course, 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. Mindful of this position of the law, I shall anon proceed to deal with substance of the claims of the claimants. The case of the claimants is actually presented in two parts: the first relates to only the 1st claimant, the second in respect of the 2nd – 6th claimants. In relation to the 1st claimant, Exhibit T1 is the letter offering him employment as Sports Editor with the defendant on a total salary package of N5,086,000 per annum. Under the terms stipulated in Exhibit T1, the 1st claimant was confirmed vide Exhibit T2. Exhibit T3 is the acceptance of the 1st claimant’s voluntary resignation from the services of the defendant. Attached to Exhibit T3 is the calculation by the defendant of the total exit entitlement of the 1st claimant put at N1,490,594.47. In his oral testimony, the 1st claimant stated that out of this entitlement, the defendant paid to him only N350,000. This means that what the defendant presently owes the 1st claimant as exit entitlement is N1,490,594.47 minus N350,000, which comes to N1,140,594.47 only; and I so find and hold. Regarding the 2nd – 6th claimants, the oral testimony of especially the 1st claimant is that he brought them all in to work under him for the defendant. In fact, his testimony is that it was because their employment was terminated without reference to him that made him resign his own appointment with the defendant. Exhibits T4(a) and T4(b) and Exhibits T5(a) and T5(b) were then exhibited as sample proof of the offer of employment and confirmation letters from the defendant. Exhibit T4(a) and T4(b) shows that each of the 2nd – 6th claimants was put on a gross salary (before any taxes or other deductions) of N1,400,000 per annum. Exhibits T6(a) – (e) each dated 23 April 2010 and also each titled “Organizational Restructuring” but with different reference numbers are copies of the letters terminating the appointments of the 2nd – 6th claimants with immediate effect. The termination letters indicated that one month’s salary in lieu of notice was attached to each of the termination letters. In fact CW2 and CW3 acknowledged in oral testimony that payments in lieu of notice were made to them when they were sacked. Exhibits T7(a) – (e) are the calculations by the defendant of its indebtedness to the 2nd – 6th claimants upon the termination of their appointments. From these exhibits, the total outstanding entitlement of each of the 2nd – 6th claimants is as follows – 1. 2nd claimant N673,155.80. 2. 3rd claimant N607,555.80 minus N80,000, which comes to N527,555.80. (CW3 in oral testimony stated that of the sum owed to him, he was only paid about N80, 000.) 3. 4th claimant N607,555.80. 4. 5th claimant N606,794.08. 5. 6th claimant N606,794.08. There is no evidence before the Court that the 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th claimants were paid any amount out of the sums owed to each of them. The failure of the defendant to pay the claimants their outstanding entitlements is, therefore, wrong. The claimants are, therefore, entitled to the declaratory relief in claim d) of their complaint and statement of claim; and I so declare. The claim for pension remittances by the claimants is not proved as Exhibit T8 said to evidence the remittance is not helpful in that regard; it discloses nothing helpful in the entries made therein. The claims for declaratory reliefs as per claims a) and b) in the complaint and statement of claim by the claimants are hinged on the wrongfulness of the termination letters. Given the evidence before the Court, I have not been shown how the termination of the appointments of the 2nd – 6th claimants is wrongful. Their appointment letters do not contain any provision regarding termination; but the general rule is that where the contract of employment is silent on that issue then termination would be based on reasonable notice and what is reasonable would depend on the facts of the case. In Shena security Co. Ltd v. Afropak Ltd & ors [2008] 4 – 5 SC (Pt. II) 117, the Supreme Court held that where there is no mode of termination of contract of service by any form of notice, the courts will imply a presumption that contract of service is to terminate by reasonable notice given by either party, and what amounts to reasonable notice will depend on the intention of the parties, nature of the contract and status of the employee in the establishment. That where there is no mode of termination of the contract of service by any form of notice, the common law rule will apply, which is that where there is a contract of service which contains no provision for notice required for termination thereof, there is an implied term that the contract can only be terminated by reasonable notice. See also Daniels v. Shell B. P. Development Co. Ltd [1962] All NLR 19; Imoloame v. WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 and Maiduguri Flour Mill Ltd v. Abba [1996] 9 NWLR (Pt. 473) 506. In the instant case, payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice was paid by the defendant. This conforms consequently with the law. All of this means that the claimants are not entitled to the declaratory reliefs in claims a) and b). The claim as per relief f) for an injunction restraining all banks from honouring the defendant’s financial instruments until the outstanding entitlements of the claimants have been settled by the defendant was not made out and so cannot be granted by this Court. The claim, therefore, fails. For reasons earlier given in this judgment, the claims in reliefs c) and e), however, succeeds but only to the extent that the claimants made out a case for and so are entitled to the following sums against each of them being their respective outstanding entitlement upon their exit from the services of the defendant company – a) 1st claimant, the sum of N1,140,594.47. b) 2nd claimant, the sum of N673,155.80. c) 3rd claimant, the sum of N527,555.80. d) 4th claimant, the sum of N607,555.80. e) 5th claimant, the sum of N606,794.08. f) 6th claimant, the sum of N606,794.08. It is, therefore, my order that the defendant shall accordingly pay to each of the claimants the sum of money as stipulated against his/her name within 30 days of this judgment. The claims in reliefs g), h) and i) are for general damages. Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 permits this Court to make “an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated by this Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdiction to hear”. In the circumstances of this case, I award the sum of Six Hundred Thousand Naira only as damages payable by the defendant in the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira to each of the claimants within 30 days of this judgment. The cost of this action is put at Sixty Thousand Naira (N60,000) payable by the defendant to the claimants within 30 days of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. ……………………………………. Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip