Download PDF
The Claimant caused a Complaint to be issued against the Defendant claiming the following reliefs-- (a) The sum of N2,078,400 and USD $8, 120.00 being the entitlements due to the Claimant from the Defendant upon the termination of the Claimant's employment by the Defendant. The breakdown of which is as follows- Naira Account Naira i. Six (6) months' salary in lieu of - N1,118,400.00 ii. Arrears of salary due from September to December, 2009 (46,000 x 4) - N184,000.00 iii. Car repair expenses - N648,000.00 iv. Accumulated weekly fuel expenses (5,000 x 4 months) - N80,000.00 v. Cost of telephone recharge cards September to December, 2009 (3,000 x 4 months) - N40,000.00 Total - N2,078,400.00 Dollar Account i. Six (6) months offshore salary in lieu of notice (USD2,000 x 6 months) - US$12,000.00 Less: Amount credited into Dollar account so far - US$3,880.00 US Dollars Balance - US$8,120.00 (b) Cost of the action (c) Any other reliefs as this Honourable Court may grant in the circumstances. Accompanied the Compliant are the Claimants statement of claim( facts) and all his accompanying processes. i.e. Claimants written statement on oath, list of witness, list of documents he seeks to rely on and the front loaded documents, admitted as exhibits B- B12. The case of the Claimant as adduced on record vide his written statement on oath and testimony under cross examination is that He had a contract of employment with the defendant vide a letter of employment dated 6th Feb, 2008 i.e. exhibit B1. According to him, the terms of his employment were both orally and in writing. The oral terms of his employment was a discussion he had with the Managing Director of the defendant's company, one Mr. Loic Adigard Des Gautries before he resumed work which was in the presence of one Mr. Alain Vedrines, a prominent Director of the Defendant. It was agreed terms of his employment, that his monthly salary would be N186,000.00; N120,000 as yearly medical allowance; $ 2,000.00 per month and N3,000 weekly for telephone cost. His appointment was confirmed orally after the satisfactory completion of his 6 months probation period. He continued that there was an oral agreement between both parties which is to the effect that both parties are entitle to 6 months notice in lieu of notice in the event of termination of employment. He was paid the sum of N186,400 between March 2008 and Aug. 2009 as monthly salary, but it was reduced to N140,000 between the month of September to December 2009 less N46,000 per month without any justifiable reason. He was not given a car as per his contract of employment, rather he was being given N5,000 every week to defray fuel expenses until August, 2009, he was not paid between September and December. He was transferred to Port Harcourt on 16th October 2009 contrary to the terms of his employment , he sent an Email to the Managing Director( also known as MD) requesting for an interim suspension of the action until the meeting of the board of Directors and in reply he was asked to send his employment letter, he did and was later served with a letter of termination of his employment, without notice and payment of arrears of salary, emoluments and other entitlement. His solicitor wrote his employer but all to no avail, hence this suit. He confirmed under cross examination, that he had an oral agreement with the then MD to be paid $2000 and his statement of account would evince payment of same by the Defendant into his account. He further contended that he has a right to reject his transfer to Port Harcourt for being contrary to the terms of his employment. The Defendant also filed its statement of Defence on the 25th of June 2013, list of witness, written deposition on oath of its witness, list of documents and front loaded documents it intends to rely on, tendered and admitted as exhibits BA-- BA3, i.e. the letter of Claimant's employment, petty cash vouchers. The case of the Defendant's whilst denying major part of the Claimants statement, stated that there was no any oral agreement between it and the Claimant as claimed by him. It confirmed that the Claimant was on a salary of N186,400 per month and N120,000 annually as medical allowance. That in May 2008, the management reviewed his salary downward to N140,000.00 and informed him. To the Defendant they never agreed to pay the Claimant the sum of $2,000 as claimed and that the Claimant's appointment was terminated due to his insubordination to constituted authority in line with its company policy. It denied agreeing with the Claimant to pay him 6 months salary in lieu of notice and that the Defendant has paid the Claimant all his entitlements, emolument and all bonuses. The Defendant's witness, Benson Aidela stated under cross examination that he never came across any company document authorising the payment of $2000, but that if it was paid at all it was an agreement between the Claimant and the MD and such is against the policy of the company. Learned Defence counsel on behalf of the Defendant filed a written address, wherein a sole issue was framed for the Court's determination, thus-- ''Whether the Claimant is entitle to the reliefs sought in his statement of facts having regard to hard evidence and the circumstances of this case'' It was contended that the evidence before the Court as given by its sole witness in this suit was unimpeachable and supported same with documentary evidence. According to the learned defence counsel the testimony of Benson Aidela, who testified for the Defendant as DW as may have been observed by the Court is a witness of truth. To the Defendant the Claimant on the other hand was in Court to mislead it. It was the argument of counsel on the issue of notice of termination of employment that by Section 11(1) (c) of the Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004, reproduced as follows- '' Either party to a contract of employment may terminate the contract on the expiration of notice given by him to the other party of his intention to do so''. (c) Two weeks where the contract had continued for a period of two years but less than five years'' By the above provision, the Claimant is entitle to only two weeks notice or two weeks salary in lieu of notice having worked from March 2008 to December 2009, but in the defendant's magnanimity the Claimant was given one month salary in lieu of notice, vide exhibit B8. He went on to state that the law is that where the words of a contract or documents are clear and unambiguous, it's the duty of the Court to enforce same between the parties. In support is the case of TOTAL NIG. PLC V CHIEF A.N. MORKAH [2002] 9 NWLR(PT773) 492; OMPADEC V DALEX NIG. LTD [2002] 12 NWLR, PT 81, 384. Learned defence counsel posited that the letter of employment of the Claimant i.e. exhibit B1spelt out the terms and conditions of employment relationship between both parties, and in the absence of any express provision as regards notice, then the provision of the law is applicable (i.e. section 11 (1)(c) of labour Act). It was the further submission of learned counsel to the Defendant, while reacting to the claim of the Claimant that he is entitle to be paid the sum of $2000 monthly and thus entitled to the sum of $12000 as 6 months notice of termination of his appointment. It is however contended that assuming the pay was actually given to the Claimant by the former MD of the company as he alleged, such was unlawful as it was designed to operate outside of the knowledge of the Defendant's board of Directors and operated in confidentiality, consequent upon which the defendant cannot be held liable for such an unlawful relationship. To the Defendant, it's not owing the Claimant any salary in lieu of notice or the amount claimed. It was posited with regards to the alleged wrongful termination of Claimant's employment, that the defendant took the decision to terminate his employment in view of insubordination to the authority of the defendant, by refusing to go on transfer to Port Harcourt. This according to the defendant is contrary to Section 9(7) of the Labour Act which he reproduced hereunder- '' A contract shall be terminated: (c) by notice in accordance with Section 11 of this Act or in any other way in which a contract is legally terminable or held to be terminated'' He contended that the above provision has been complied with by the Defendant vide exhibit B7. Learned defence counsel concluded by submitting that the Claimant has failed to prove his case against the Defendant and in that vein his claims should be dismissed as lacking in merit, gold digging and award cost in favour of the Defendant. The Claimant vide his written address filed on 19th Dec, 2013, on his own part, framed two issues for the Court's consideration viz-- 1. Whether the Defendant is bound by the oral, written and implied terms and conditions of the contract of employment entered with the Claimant by the then Managing Director of the Defendant, acting in the ordinary course of his duty. and 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought against the Defendant in this suit. It was the argument of the Claimant on issue one ,that the Defendant is bound by the written, oral and implied terms and conditions of the contract of employment entered with the Claimant by Mr. Loic Adigard Des Gautries, the then Managing Director of the Defendant, acting in the ordinary course of his duty. To the Learned counsel for the Claimant all correspondences and facts before this Court reveal that the former MD of the Defendant dealt with the Claimant in his official capacity and not in his personal capacity as posited by the defence. Examples he gave are the letter of offer of employment which was signed by the same MD, and all communications vide exhibit B which were all electronic communications between the Claimant and the MD. It was the further contention of the Claimant that the Defendant have not denied that the MD who was the alter ego of the company had powers and authority to reach agreement on its behalf. He cited the decision of Court as espoused by Denning L.J. in the case of H.L.BOLTON CO. V T.J. GRAHAM & SONS [1956] 3 ALL E.R. 624 @ 630; thus-- '' A Company may in many ways be likened to a human body. they have a brain and a nerve centre which controls what they do. They also have hands which holds the tools and act in accordance with directions from the centre. Some of the people in the Company are mere servants and agents who are nothing more that hands to the works and cannot be said to represent the mind or will. others are Directors and Managers who represent the directing mind and will of the Company, and control what they do. The State of mind of these managers is the state of mind of the Company and is treated by the law as such...''( emphasis his). In addition, the Claimant submitted that the above case law authority has been given a statutory blessing by Sections 65 and 66 of Companies and Allied Matters Act, Cap. C20, LFN 2004. The Claimant continued that he was employed by the Defendant and he worked for the defendant and not the MD in his private capacity. It was the argument of the Claimant that the defendant failed to proof it's case through the testimony of its witness, when he stated in paragraph 9 of his written deposition on oath that payment of $2000 monthly salary was brokered between the Claimant and the former MD of the Defendant and that such payment was against the policy of the defendant, but failed to show the Court what the policy of the company is, as opposed to what it is not. Learned Claimant's counsel took a swipe against the description of the learned defence counsel as regards the agreement with the Claimant by the MD as an illegality and submitted that, that is alien to the facts before the Court as there is nothing on record in proof of same, he thus urged the Court to discountenance it, as submission of counsel cannot take the place of evidence. He commended the case of NIG. ARAB BANK LTD V FEMI KANE LTD [1995] 4 NWLR (PT387) 100 @ 106. To the Claimant the content of Exhibits B, B2 and B9 go to show that there were oral and implied terms agreed between both parties that are not contained in exhibit B1. Reliance is placed on Section 91 of the Labour Act; which defines contract of employment as 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. He submitted further that his relationship with the Defendant is that of master/ servant, on this point he cited the case of NIG AIRWAYS V GBAJUMO [1992] 5 NWLR (PT 244) 735 @ 749-750; where Kolawole JCA( as he then was) expressed the principle of law thus- '' .... the relationship of master and servant is characterised by a contract of service, express or implied, between the master and the servant. A contract of hiring and service may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed, .... Nothing prevents a contract of hiring and service from being oral, save where such a contact must be under seal". (emphasis is his). He finally submitted on issue one that the agreement reached between the Claimant and the then MD whether orally and impliedly forms part of the terms and conditions of the employment contract and are binding on the Defendant. It was the argument of the learned Claimant's counsel on issue two that he is absolutely in agreement with the Defence as regards the decision of the Court in the case of MINILODGE LTD & ANOR V CHIEF OLUKA ALAKA NGEI & ANOR, supra. as regards the duty of the Court to evaluate evidence placed before it. It was the take of the Claimant that the standard of proof in civil cases is on the balance of probabilities and does shift from one side to the other. He argued that the onus of adducing further evidence is usually on the person who will fail, if such evidence was not adduced. Section 134 of the Evidence Act, 2011. To the Claimant he has fulfilled that condition. Learned Claimant's counsel submitted that the Claimant has proven his case with regards to his claim on arrears of salary. It was his argument that his salary as per Exhibit B1 is N186,400 which was paid between March 2008 and August 2009, but was reduced to N140,000 from Sept. 2009 to Dec. 2009, leaving a shortfall of N46,400, amounting to a total sum of N184,000 unpaid. The Defendant admitted paying him N140,000 instead of N186,400, but alleged that the Defendant management board of the company reviewed his salary downward, however, the Defendant did not tender any board resolution in prove of its assertion and submitted that the reduction of the Claimant's monthly salary is inconsistent with the clear content of exhibit B1. He urged the Court to hold that the Claimant has been able to prove that he is entitle to salary arrears of the sum of N184,000. On the claim of 6 months' salary and 6 months offshore salary in lieu of notice; It was submitted that the Claimant testified under cross examination that there was an oral agreement between him and the defendant that both parties are entitle to 6 months notice in lieu of notice, in the event of termination, he adopted his submission on oral agreement. To him the Defendant did not call the former MD of the company who entered into the oral agreement with the Claimant. The case of EZEMBA V IBENEME supra @ P. 660 was cited in support and submitted that the best evidence for the Defence was to have called the then MD Mr. Loic Adigard, who was the MD of the defendant at all material times, did negotiated and reached oral agreement with the Claimant on behalf of the Company, instead the defendant called DW Mr. Benson Aidela who joined the company in 2013, over 3 years after the Claimant left the company. He thus submitted that failure of the Defendant to call the then MD of the Company is fatal to his case and urged the Court to hold that Benson Aidela is not vital witness in this case. Reliance was placed on FAMO NIG. LTD V DAODU [1993] 3NWLR (PT281) 372 @ 377 in support of this submission. The Claimant in his reaction to the submission of the Defendant's counsel that the Claimant is only entitle to two weeks notice or salary in lieu, he reacted and submitted that the Defendant's counsel submission is misconceived, in that the Defendant is supposed to have included the issue of notice as provided for by Section 7 (1) (e) of Labour Act in the Claimant's employment letter. To the Claimant the Defendant surreptitiously excluded the period of notice required to be given by either party in the event of termination from the letter of employment i.e. exhibit B1 and agreed orally with the Claimant on 6 months notice. It's thus the submission of Claimant's counsel that it is safe to conclude that having failed to perform the statutory obligation imposed on it under Section 7(1)(e) of Labour Act, the Defendant cannot turn around to deny the Claimant the benefit of oral agreement between both parties. He urged the Court to hold that for Section 11(2)(c) to apply, Section 7(1)(e) must be complied with. It was the further contention of learned Claimant's counsel that by the statement of account of the Claimant as evinced by Exhibit B9 is a clear prove of the payment of offshore salary in the sum of $2,000 to the Claimant by the defendant which was not also included in exhibit B1 but was implemented in line with the oral agreement between the parties. He prayed the Court to hold that the Claimant is entitle to 6 months offshore salary in lieu of notice in the sum of $8,120.00 and N1,118,400 also as 6 months salary in lieu of notice. Learned Claimant's counsel argued that there is no provision for car repair expenses and telephone recharge cards in Exhibits B1, that it is clear by exhibits B and B2 that the Claimant is entitle to the said payments and had actually been paid same by the defendant. The case of NNEJI V ZACKEM CONSTRUCTION (NIG) LTD [2006]12 NWLR (PT 994) 297 @ 311-312 Paras. H-A, where the apex Court expressed clearly as follows- '' It is possible for a contract to emerge from series of correspondence between two persons. But it must be apparent when the correspondences exchanged are read together that parties have come to an agreement'' He submitted that the claims of the Claimant for the sum of N40,000 as cost of telephone recharge cards, the sum of N648,000 and N80,000 as cost of car repair expenses and accumulated fuel expenses respectively was not challenged or controverted by the Defendant, he then urged the Court to rely on it. It was further submitted that the Defendant in paragraph 16 of its pleading and written statement on oath of its witness admitted paying the Claimant car repairs and maintenance expenses. He recanted the known settled principle of law which is that facts not denied are deemed admitted and facts admitted need no further prove. Section 123 of the Evidence Act and the case of BENDEL PILGRIM WELFARE BOARD V IRAWO [1995] 1 NWLR (PT 369) 118 @ 124 and finally contended that the oral and implied terms of his contract sufficiently proven are not inconsistent with the content of letter of offer, i.e. exhibit B1and that his case falls under the exception to the parol evidence Rule as enshrined in Section 128(1) (b) of the Evidence Act, and urged the Court to resolve issue two in favour of the Claimant and grant the reliefs sought. The Defendant filed a reply on points of law on 23th Dec, 2013. It was the reply of the defendant that the case of EZEMBA V IBENEME [2004] 14 NWLR (PT 894) 617, cited by the Claimant does not support his claim. To the Defendant the best evidence rule was elucidated in the case of JACK V WHYTE [2001] 6 NWLR (PT 709) 66 where it was held thus- '' The burden of proof in civil cases rest upon the party whether Plaintiff or Defendant who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issue. It is an ancient rule founded on consideration of good sense, and it should not be departed from without any reason . It is fixed at the beginning of the trial by the state of the pleadings and it is settled as a question of law, remaining unchanged throughout the trial exactly where the pleadings placed it, and never shifting in any circumstances whatever, if when all the evidence, by whomsoever introduced, is in, the party who has this burden has not discharged it the decision must be against him'' It was then submitted that the onus of proving that the Claimant is entitle to 6 months notice or 6 months salary in lieu of notice rest on him by virtue of paragraphs 19 and 21 of his statement of fact which in accordance with the decision of the apex Court remain the state of his pleadings. Whilst placing heavy reliance on Sections 131, 132 and 133 of the Evidence Act 2011, the defendant submitted that it is the Claimant's responsibility to call the former MD of its company in proof of his claim and not the Defendant. It was the position of the Defendant that the provision of Section 7(1) (e) is subject to Section 11(2) (c) in that where no provision is made in the employment letter as regards issue of notice on termination recourse would be had to Section 11(2) (c) of the Labour Act, and finally urge the Court to hold that the Claimant has failed to prove his case on the balance of probability. I have carefully gone through all the processes filed by both parties in this suit, the submissions of learned counsel for both parties and both the case law and statutory authorities cited, the issues for the Consideration of this Court as framed by the learned Claimant's counsel is hereby adopted by the Court as the main issues in this suit, I rephrased it thus- 1. Whether or not the alleged oral and implied terms of contract entered into with the Claimant by the Managing Director of the Defendant is binding on the company. 2. Whether or not the Claimant has proven his case to warrant granting him the reliefs sought. Now, it was the submission of the Defendant on issue one whilst denying the claims of the Claimant as regards the oral or implied agreement between him and the former Managing Director of the company, that nothing of such happened and that even if it thus happened it was a private agreement between the both of them and such is not in accordance with the company's policy and an illegality which should be discountenance by the Court. The Claimant on the other hand posited that the oral agreement he entered with the Managing Director of the defendant is enforceable, same having been complied with vide exhibit B9 as regards payment of $2000 per month which was paid to him uptill the termination of his employment. Ditto the car maintenance allowance, fuel allowance and recharge card for his phone. Let it be clearly stated as it is a long settled principle of law that an employer who hires an employee has the corresponding right to fire him at any time and in so far as that is done within the confines of the contract of employment which is the letter of employment, Equally an employee has the corresponding right to terminate or determine at any time the contract of employment between him and his employer and same should also be done within the confines of the contract of his employment. See the recently decided case of OGAN & ORS V NIG.LIQUIFIED NATURAL GAS LTD & ANOR [2013] 16 NWLR (PT 1381) P 506 @ 537, Paras B.C. S.C. Be that as it may, on a scrutiny of the processes and documents on record it is clear that both parties are in tandem with the fact that there is an employment letter as evinced by exhibit B1 which regulates the employment relationship of both parties, they however turned apart as regards whether or not this exhibit contains all the terms of contract of employment between the Claimant and the Defendant. Now let us consider the content of Exhibit B1 reproduced hereunder- "Mr. Olusegun SAPARA Apapa Lagos - Nigeria RE: OFFER OF EMPLOYMENT Sequel to your success in both oral and written interview, management have decided to put you on six (6) months probationary period and your monthly salary while on probation shall be NGN 186,400.00 only. A car with driver will be provided. A yearly medical allowance will be given of NGN120,000.00 only, prorata basis of your time within the company in 2008. Please note that you will be reporting directly to the Managing Director (MD) (if MD is not on seat, you will report to Branch Manger (BM) and working as Head of Shipping, Managing shipping for both agencies, shipping development under strong marketing development, technical advisor on bids, relationship with government agencies, renewal of various certificates for AMT Nigeria Management will periodically assess your suitability to these assignments intermittently to determine whether or not to retain you after the six (6) months scrutiny. We do wish you all the best with us and hope you will fulfil your tasks. Loic ADIGARD DES GAUTRIES Managing Director AMT Nigeria Ltd" It could be distilled from the above letter of employment that the salary of the Claimant was put at N186,400.00 per month, provision of a car with driver; yearly medical allowance N120,000.00. He was also to report Directly to the Managing Director of the company. i.e. ( LOIC ADIGARD DES GAUTRIES) at that time. It is the case of the Claimant that the managing Director whom he reports to directly as per exhibit B1, agreed to give N5,000 as weekly fuel allowance in lieu of the provision of car and N3,000.00 as weekly telephone recharge card allowance. Additionally, the Claimant contended that the MD agreed to give him the sum of $2,000.00 monthly as offshore allowance, which according to him was paid for some time. It is a settled principle of law that contract of employment like any other contract can be formal or informal, it can be made orally or in writing depending on the circumstances of each case, and is in principle subject to the general contractual rules of the common law. See AJAYI OBE V EXECUTIVE SECRETARY FAMILY PLANNING COUNCIL OF NIGERIA [1975] 3 S.C.1; SHENA SECURITY COMPANY LTD V AFROPAK (NIG) LTD & ORS [2008] 34 NSCQR (PT11) 1287. Per MUHAMMAD, JSC. ''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.'' Having stated the above position of the law, now could it be inferred considering the facts of this case and the evidence on record that the Defendant agreed orally to pay the above stated money claimed by the Claimant? The petty cash vouchers attached to the bundle of documents admitted and marked exhibit B11, show that the Defendant paid some money ranging from N28,800.00 to N31,200.00 from January 2009 to August 2009 as vehicle repair expenses to the Claimant. It is equally evident vide exhibit B9 i.e. statement of account that the sum of $2000 was paid into the Claimant's account by the defendant on 10/4/08, 25/4/08, 27/05/08, 25/06/08, 24/07/08 paid $1,999.00, 26/08/08 $2,009.65, 26/09/08, 28/10/08, 25/11/08, 22/12/08, 28/01/09, He was not paid in Feb, 2009, but was paid twice in March, 2009,i.e. 2/3/09 and 26/3/09, on 28/04/09, these are all facts before the Court showing the payment of the above sums of money by the Defendant to the Claimant when he was in the employ of the Defendant. It is interesting to note that the Defendant's witness on record Mr. Benson Aidela did not deny payment of fuel, telephone recharge card and car maintenance allowances to the Claimant, he however, put a rider that the Defendant should first be satisfied with a proof from the Claimant before payments were made in that regard; and with regards to the $2,000.00 monthly offshore salary, he responded that even if that was paid to the Claimant it was between him and the then MD and it is illegal as it is against the defendant's policy. It is clear as could be gleaned from the cash voucher evidencing payment of vehicle maintenance sums paid to the Claimant that the various sums were approved by the defendant's Branch manager. It could be deduced from exhibit B9, i.e. the statement of domiciliary account of the Claimant domiciled in Standard Chartered Bank that the various sums of money ranging from $1,990.00 and $2000.00 credited to the Claimant's account were paid by the Defendant i.e. ''AMT ADVANCE MARITIME TRANSPORT'' Res ipsa loqutor, the documents on record speak for themselves. What all these document have implied is that the Defendant in fact agreed to pay the Claimant the $2,000.00 offshore monthly salary, the vehicle maintenance allowance, recharge card allowances and indeed paid him the said sums of money as stated and evinced above by documents tendered in that regard and was corroborated by the admittance of the Defendant in paragraph 16 of its statement of Defence. As it is the law of common place that facts admitted need no further proof. I so find and hold. It is also in the calm view of the Court that the action of the then Managing Director of the Company i.e. Mr. Loic Adigard Des Gautries who was at all material time the alter ego of the Defendant signed the Claimant letter of employment which is the basis of the Contract of employment as reproduced above requested the Claimant to report directly to the MD. There were electronic mails evidencing the communication between the MD and the Claimant on the issue of $2,000.00. The MD acted in his capacity as such in paying the said sum of money severally to the Claimant by the company into his account; that cannot be an illegality as alleged by the Defendant's witness, to hold so means that the defendant aided and engaged in an illegality and equity cannot aid the fraudulent. Because Exhibit B9 i.e. the statement of account of the Claimant shows that the Defendant paid in these money and not the then MD. It is observed though, that Exhibit B 11 tendered by the Defendant has attached to it a letter written by one M.A. Agbonhiebuele Solicitor for the Defendant denying the payment of offshore salary to the Claimant and equally alleging that the board of Directors of the defendant pegged the Claimant salary at N140,000.00. It is trite that a letter by a party's solicitor cannot take the place of evidence, in other words it would have done a great deal of good to the Defence case if the alleged board resolution where the decision was purportedly made was placed before the Court. That is not the situation in this case. The alleged board resolution was not before the Court or a letter to the Claimant in that regard, the only document and evidence before the Court as regards the Claimant's monthly salary are his letter of employment and his statement of account. The position of the law is settled that oral evidence cannot impeach the authenticity or otherwise of a documentary evidence. It follows from the actions of the Managing Director, therefore, that a disclosed principal is entitled to sue or be sued in respect of any money paid or acts done on his behalf by his agent/s; In this instance the Principal is the Defendant, is entitle to sue and be sued on any money paid on his behalf acting in his capacity as its Managing Director. See A.A. DEHINSILU V MONDEC PHARMACY LTD [2008] LPELR, 3547; KEDIFE & ANOR V OBIENU [1975] 4 S.C. (REPRINT) 27. See ATAGUBA AND COMPANY v. GURA NIGERIA LIMITED (2005) All FWLR (Pt. 256) 1219." Per LOKULO-SODIPE, J.C.A (P. 38, paras. A-C); See also the decision of Tobi JSC in OKOLO V U.B.N. LTD [2004] 3 NWLR (PT 859) 87, [2004] 1.S.C. (PT1) 1 ''...a director of a company is, in the eyes of the law, an agent of the company for which he acts and the general principle of the law of principal and agent would apply. Thus, where a director enters into a contract in the name of or purporting to bind the company, it is the company, the principal, which is liable on it, not the director" (P. 32, paras. A-C) . I place reliance on the above decision and hold that the oral agreement entered into by the MD of the defendant to pay the above stated allowances to the Claimant are binding on the Defendant. Ditto the allowances paid in respect of vehicle maintenance, recharge cards and the offshore salary evident vide the Petty cash vouchers attached to Exhibit B11. I so find and hold. However, I hold a different view as regards the six months notice or 6 months salary in lieu of notice, as there is nothing on record either written or otherwise to lend credence to same. The position of the law as regards notice where there is no provision of same in the contract of employment as it is in the instance case which is contrary to the provision of Section 7 (1) (e) of the Labour Act CAP L1 LFN 2004; requires an employer to make provision for this in the contract of employment and in doing so the employer is to consider the provision of Section11, which specifies the period of notice that may be given by either parities to the contract of employment. The Defendant having failed to make provision as to the period of notice of termination by either party. The Court would seek refuge and place reliance on case law authorities on the subject. The Appeal Court in ARAROMI RUBBER ESTATE LTD V OROGUN [1990] 1 NWLR (PT 586) 302; Where the Court held that in a contract of employment where there is totally no written agreement as to the period of notice of termination, notice given must be reasonable notice or pay in lieu of such reasonable notice as the case may be. What then is the reasonable period of notice in this instance? It is on record that the Defendant issued a cheque in the sum of N140,000.00 as one month salary in lieu of notice (i.e. Exhibit B8) attached to his letter of termination of his employment i.e. Exhibit B7, although the cheque is yet to be made good by the Claimant. Reasonable notice in the considered view of the Court in this case where the Claimant worked for 22 months is one month notice as already acceded to by the Defendant when the cheque was issued to the Claimant. However, the one month salary of the Claimant as could be gleaned from his letter of employment is N186,400.00 per month as held earlier in this judgment, that is the amount that should be paid to him in lieu of one month notice and not N140,000.00, I so find and hold. Now, to the second issue which is whether or not the Claimant has proven his case to warrant granting him the reliefs sought. The claims of the Claimant as reproduced above are for six months salary in lieu of notice which is N1,118,400.00, arrears of salary from September to December, 2009 N184,000.00, Car repair expenses in the sum of N648,000.00, accumulated fuel expenses at N5,000.00 per week for 4 months in the sum of N40,000.00 all totalling N2,078,400.00. His claims for the dollar account as stated above is the sum of $8,120.00 and an unspecified amount as cost of action. Having held that the Defendant is bound by the actions of his Managing Director as regards the oral agreement he had with the Claimant and by the content and tenor of the letter of employment which forms the bedrock upon which the relationship between the Defendant and the Claimant was established i.e. Exhibit B1; The salary of the Claimant in Exhibit B1 is put at N186,400.00, A car and a driver which was not provided but was provided in kind by paying for the fuelling of his car and maintenance of same as stated above , and N120,000.00 yearly medical allowance. It is clear from all that have been stated above that the Claimant has successfully proven that he is entitle to a monthly salary of N186,400.00, car repair expenses, weekly fuel expenses at the rate of N5,000.00 per week, N3,000.00 weekly telephone recharge cards and one month offshore salary of $2,000.00 in lieu of notice, However, his claim of 6 months salary in lieu of notice for both his naira account and dollar accounts fails. Now, the record before the Court shows that the Claimant's salary was reduced to N140,000.00 from the month of September 2009 till the time his appointment was terminated in December 2009, which means his salary was less the sum of N46,400.00 per month from September 2009 to December 2009, i.e. 4 months, the total of which is N185,600.00. It is also on record that the Claimant's vehicle maintenance allowance was not paid for the months of September to December 2009, hence the sum of N5,000.00 weekly fuel allowance and N3,000.00 recharge card allowance per week should be paid to the Claimant for 4 months. However, with regards to $12,000.00 6 months notice in lieu of notice, it flows from all that have been said in this judgment that the Claimant is only entitle to one month notice and not 6 months, hence the only amount payable to him is $2,000.00 which is his offshore salary in lieu of notice. It was also the case of the Claimant that he was paid $3,880.00 instead of $12,000.00 as his 6 months salary in lieu of notice, See paragraph 24 of the Claimant' written statement on oath, what this means is that the Claimant has been over paid, consequently he should refund to the Defendant the sum of $1,880.00 as default payment. Be that as it may, It would not be out of place to state as this point came to fore in the course of trial, that an employer has an unfettered right to transfer an employee, it is a management prerogative. It is also the law that an employer is not bound to give reasons for terminating the appointment of its employee. See SPDC. LTD V VICTOR SUNDAY OLANREWAJU [2011]22 N.L.L.R (PT 61) P 1 @ 20. Be it noted that the termination of the Claimant's employment is not in protest in this case. What is in protest are as stated in his Claims. Having held that the Claimant has proven his case, consequently his claims succeeds in part, he is entitle to some of the reliefs sought as analysed above in this judgment. I therefore make the following orders for the purposes of clarity- 1. That the Defendant is bound by the oral and mutual agreement between its Managing Director and the Claimant for the payment of $2,000.00 offshore monthly salary and weekly allowances for Claimant's fuelling and telephone recharge card. 2. That the Claimant is only entitle to one month salary in lieu of notice which is N186,400.00 and $2,000.00 respectively. 3. That the Defendant should pay the sum of N128,000.00 as fuel and telephone recharge card allowances respectively for 4 months, i.e. September 2009 to December 2009 4. The Claimant should refund to the Defendant the sum of $1,880.00 being money paid to him in excess of one month offshore salary in lieu of notice. 5. Both the Claimant and the Defendant should comply with all the above decision within 30 days from the date of this Judgment. No order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE