Download PDF
The claimants had commenced this action vide a complaint dated and filed on 10th August 2012 praying for the following reliefs – 1. A declaration that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant and the consequent offer of employment made to the claimant by the defendant dated 1st June 2009 ipso-facto established a valid contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant company. 2. A declaration that the claimant is lawfully entitled to full payment of her salaries having worked throughout the cause of her employment with the defendant including the months of February – April 2010 representing various months of non-payment of the claimant’s salaries by the defendant company. 3. An order of the Honourable Court directing the defendant to pay the claimant’s salaries from the month of February – April 2010 totalling Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira (N513,000.00) only. 4. An order directing the defendant to pay the claimant vacation allowances totalling One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Naira (N181,000.00) only. 5. An order directing the defendant company to give the claimant her Tax Card or Tax Clearance Certificate having deducted One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand Naira (N128,000.00) from the claimant’s salaries as Personal Income Tax (PIT) from July 2009 to October 2010. 6. Interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 25% per month from February 2010 until full and final settlement of judgment sum. 7. Aggravated and exemplary damages in sum of Four Million Naira only for breach of contract and failure to pay the claimant’s salaries/vacation allowances as at when due for payment. 8. Cost of litigation estimated at One Million Naira (N1,000,000.00) only. Accompanying the complaint are the statement of fact, list of witnesses, claimant’s witness statement on oath, list of documents and copies of the documents to be relied upon at the trial eventually marked as Exhibits C1 – C12. The defendant reacted by filing a statement of defence and counterclaim, list of witness, witness statement on oath, defendant’s list of documents and copies of the documents eventually marked as Exhibits D1 – D4. As per its counterclaim, the defendant counterclaimed as follows – a) The sum of One Hundred and eighty Thousand Naira (N180,000.00), representing one month salary of the claimant which she failed to pay the defendant in lieu of his (sic) notice of resignation on 28th October 2010. b) The cumulative sum of Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Naira (N83,200) representing the cash balance which the claimant failed to remit upon her exit from the defendant company, the cash value of the company note book and bag, as well as the cash value of the starcomms phone still in the claimant’s possession. c) The cost of employing the services of a firm of legal practitioners to undertake the defence of the defendant as well as make a counterclaim in the sum of One Million Five Hundred Naira (N1,500,000.00). d) Interest on all the above sums at the rate of 21% interest per annum. e) A declaration that the claimant was in breach of the termination clause of the contract of employment dated 1st June 2009 by failing to give to the defendant one month salary in lieu of notice. f) Aggravated and exemplary damages for breach of the termination clauses in the contract of employment and wilful and or illegally withholding the defendant company’s document, more specifically the cheques listed herein in the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00). The defendant did not file any memorandum of appearance as enjoined by Order 8 Rule 1(1) of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007. By Order 8 Rule 5(1), “where a defendant or respondent fails to file a Memorandum of Appearance within the stipulated time, or fails to file appropriate processes in defence of the action within the prescribed time, and also fails to file a declaration of intention not to defend the action, the Court may proceed to hear the matter and give judgment”. The claimant reacted to the defendant’s statement of defence and counterclaim and so filed a reply to it with accompanying documents, Exhibits C13 – C24, attached. At the Court’s sitting of 14th February 2013, the Court had ordered the defendant to pay to the claimant cost of the day put at N10,000 before the next adjourned date. The defendant never complied up to the point of adoption of written addresses. By Order 19 Rule 4 of the NIC Rules 2007, “where any party to the proceedings fails to comply with an order or direction of the Court, the Court may order that the party be barred from taking any further part in those proceedings until he or she has complied with such direction or order or may such other order as the Court thinks just”. Given this Rule coupled with Rule 5(1) of Order 8, the Court barred the defendant from taking any further part in the proceedings before the Court. The matter accordingly proceeded to trial. The claimant testified on her own behalf as CW. Thereafter, the Court ordered the filing of written addresses. While, the claimant filed hers on 18th November 2013, the defendant did not file any. The case of the claimant is that she was a staff of the defendant. That by Exhibit C1 dated 1st June 2009 the defendant offered her a contract of employment which she accepted vide Exhibit C2 dated 10th June 2009 whereupon she was issued with the defendant’s staff identity card, Exhibit C3. The claimant went on that she started work with the defendant on a monthly salary of One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Naira (N181,000.00), which monthly salary was often paid towards the end of one or two preceding months and in fact that the claimant’s backlog of salaries was paid to the claimant by the defendant in January 2010. That her salaries for the months of February – April 2010 remained unpaid till date. That the claimant further applied to the defendant’s company on 10th July 2010 for vacation in line with paragraph 5 of Exhibit C1 but the defendant refused the said application and failed to pay the claimant her vacation allowance which constitutes breach of contract enshrined in Exhibits C1 and C2. To the claimant, the defendant’s failure, refusal and neglect to pay her outstanding salaries made the claimant to forward internal memo of her formal resignation dated 20th October 2010 (Exhibit C4), which was accepted by the defendant’s General Manager’s mail dated 25th and 26th October 2010 (Exhibit C5). That the defendant having accepted Exhibit C4 vide Exhibit C5 in line with the provisions or terms of Exhibit C1 thereto promised to pay the claimant’s salaries backlog totalling the sum of Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira (N513,000.00) and pleaded to pay the claimant on 15th November 2010, which has remained unpaid till date despite the claimant’s spirited demand for her salaries; hence this action. The claimant continued that it was the failure of the defendant to pay her outstanding salaries and approve her vacation that led her to tender her resignation letter (Exhibit C6) together with the handover note (Exhibit C7). That the defendant accepted and admitted its indebtedness to the claimant to the tune of Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira (N5I3, 000.00) and promised to pay the said sum to the claimant on 15th November 2010. That when the claimant got to the defendant’s office to collect her unpaid salary, the defendant reneged from their promise to pay her on 15th November 2010 and further pleaded with the claimant to come back in the first week of December 2010 and the claimant forwarded her bank account number to the defendant’s General Manager to credit her bank account with her arrears of her salary, only to be informed that the defendant will pay her in future at an undisclosed date. The claimant continued to visit the defendant’s office to demand for her salary but all to no avail and the claimant got frustrated after writing several demand letters, emails, text messages and phone calls as evidenced in Exhibits C8, C9 and C10. The claimant then employed the services of her counsel to demand for her unpaid salaries. The claimant’s counsel wrote to the defendant on 16th July 2012 and 23rd July 2013 demanding for the outstanding salary payment of the claimant as evidenced in Exhibits C11 and C12 respectively, which demands were not adhered to. The claimant framed the following four issues for the determination of the Court – 1. Whether the defendant is not bound by the terms of the agreement (offer of employment) dated 1st June 2009 to pay the claimant’s outstanding salary of the sum of N513,000.00 (Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira) only with interest which represents the claimant’s salaries from the month of February – April 2010 and the sum of N181,000:00 (One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Naira) only with interest which represents the claimant’s annual vacation allowance as provided in their contract. 2. Whether the claimant is not entitled to be paid compensation/damage by the defendant. 3. Whether the defendant’s counterclaim is not bound to fail for non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action, same being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and an abuse of court process. 4. Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the claimant’s cost of litigation in this suit. Regarding issue 1, the claimant contended that it is a trite law that parties to an agreement are bound by such agreement and as such can enforce the agreement in a solemn contract; both parties are to fulfil all the conditions therein honestly and to honour its terms, which they are bound by, referring to Jadesimi v. Egbe [2003] 10 NWLR (Pt. 829) 1 CA. That the defendant willingly entered into the contract of employment with the claimant in Exhibit C1 dated 1st June 2009 and the claimant accepted by signing same in Exhibit C2 dated 10th June 2009. Therefore, the defendant and claimant are bound by same to the extent of its liability under the said contract. That paragraph 4 of Exhibit C1 provided for the claimant’s salary to be paid accordingly by the defendant. The claimant then referred the Court to Artra Industries Ltd v. Nigerian Bank for Commerce and Industries [1997] 1 NWLR (Pt. 483) at 593 as authority for the principle that parties are bound by the agreement they willingly enter into. Also referred to the Court are the cases of National Salt Co. of Nig. Ltd v. Inis Palmer [1992] 1 NWLR (Pt. 218) 422 at 426 and UBA Ltd v. Penny Mart Ltd [1992] 5 NWLR (Pt. 240) 288 at 234. To the claimant then, the defendant in this suit is bound by Exhibit C1 and, therefore, liable to pay the claimant her backlog of salaries and her vacation benefits. That it is the duty of the Court to give expression and effect to the agreement or contract between the parties regardless of the name given to the said contract; and also that the Court is duty bound to pronounce on the wishes of the parties and not to make contract for them or re-write their contract, referring to Total (Nig) Plc v. Morikah [2002] 9 NWLR (Pt. 773) 492 CA, Odudu v. Onyibe [2001] 13 NWLR (Pt. 729) 140 CA, JFS Inv. Ltd v. Brawal Line Ltd [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 495 SC, Baba v. NCATC [1991] 5 NWLR (Pt. 192) 388, Koiki v. Magnusson [1999] 8 NWLR (Pt. 615) 492, Bookshop House v. Stanley Consultants [1986] 3 NWLR (Pt. 26) 87 and African Reinsurance Corp. v. Fantaye [1986] 1 NWLR (Pt. 14) 113. The claimant went on that paragraph 5 of Exhibit C1 provide for annual leave, stating that the claimant is entitled to 14 (fourteen) working days leave after having completed each year of continuous service with the firm. That Exhibit C1 became binding on the claimant and the defendant on 10th June 2010 by the operation of Exhibits C1 and C2, meaning that the employment became effective for the purposes of determining the claimant’s annual leave on 1st July 2010 as stated in Exhibit C1 and by 2nd July 2010, the claimant was due to proceed on annual leave. That the claimant applied for her annual leave on 10th July 2010 and the management refused the claimant’s request to proceed on her annual leave. That the claimant further applied for her annual leave in August and September 2010 respectively but the defendant’s management turned her request down, which is also a breach of their contract of employment. That the defendant’s management “refused to grant the claimant the approval to proceed on vacation allowances or any form of compensation for not allowing the claimant to proceed on leave”. The claimant continued by referring the Court to Exhibits C5, C8, C9, Cl0 and C23, particularly Exhibit C5 where the defendant’s General Manager acknowledged the claimant’s letter of resignation dated 20th October 2010 in the following words – Good day. I have received your mail informing the company of your resignation with effect from 6th of November 2010. The management has discussed it and considering the fact that this is the second time you are presenting a resignation letter we are convinced that you have made your decision. We hereby accept your resignation letter to be effected from 1st of November 2010. We are aware that we still owe you 513,000.00 naira but we crave your indulgence to give the company until 15th November to settle the outstanding owed. We thank you for all your loyalty during your stay with us, and we wish you well in your future endeavour. Thank you. FOR JOPA ENERGY LTD NKECHI CHIJIOKE GENERAL MANAGER To the claimant, by Exhibit C5 shows the indebtedness of the defendant to the claimant; and in paragraph 7 of her statement of fact dated 10th August 2012, the claimant pleaded that she applied for her vacation (annual leave). The claimant referred to Exhibit C1 and section 18 of Labour Act Cap L1 LFN 2004. That the defendant did not contrast all of this in their pleadings, neither did they lead evidence in that regard, which amounts to admission. That the law is trite that there is no burden incumbent upon a party to prove facts which has been admitted by the adversary party, referring to Tijani Jolasun v. Napoleon Bamgboye [2010] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1225) 285 and Adeleke v. Aserifa [1990] 3NWLR (Pt. 136) 94. The claimant then urged the Court to hold that the defendant is liable to pay the claimant’s outstanding salaries on prevailing bank interest with the claimant’s vacation allowances. The claimant went on that the above is predicated on the fact that in all cases, a worker is entitled to his wages, a right automatically incorporated into the conduct of employment, whether express or not, because service and wages invariably constitute the twin pillars upon which contract of employment rests, referring to Underwater Engineering Co. v. Darasha Debefon [1995] 6 NWLR (Pt. 400) 156, Jeremiah v. Iregbe & anor [1996] 7 NWLR 347 at 356. Way v. Latilla [1937] 3 All ER 759 and Chemical & Non-Metallic Products Senior Staff Association v. Benue Cement Company Plc [2006] 5 NLLR (Pt. 14) 1. Regarding issue 2 i.e. whether the claimant is not entitled to be paid compensation/damages, the claimant contended that she pleaded in paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 of the claimant’s statement of fact dated 10th August 2012 inter alia that the defendant owed the claimant arrears of salaries totalling N513,000.00 (Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira) only and promised to pay same to the claimant but reneged up to date. That in paragraph 15 of the said statement of fact, she outlined the particulars of breach which the defendant’s officer admitted in Exhibits C5, C9, C10 and C23 of their acts that constituted a breach of their contract. That sections 1, 7, 18, 19 and 21(1)(c) of the Labour Act makes it an offence for an employer like the defendant to contravene the sections of the Act. However, that this being a civil action, the provisions of section 19(d) and (e) of the National industrial Court (NIC) Act 2006 permits this Court where necessary to make any appropriate order including an award of compensation or damages in any circumstances contemplated by law or make an order of compliance with any provision of a law made by the National Assembly dealing with any matter that the Court has jurisdictions to hear. The claimant then urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant in view of this authority and order compensation/damages as prayed in paragraph 18(vii) of the statement of fact dated 10th August 2012. Regarding issue 3 i.e. whether the defendant’s counterclaim is not bound to fail for nondisclosure of reasonable cause of action same being frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and an abuse of court process, the claimant asserted that she filed a reply to statement of defence/claimant’s defence to the defendant’s counterclaim dated 9th November 2012. To the claimant, Amata v. Omofuma [1997] 2 NWLR (Pt. 485) 93 CA stated inter alia that – A counter claim is an independent action, which enables a Defendant to enforce a claim against a plaintiff. It is by nature a ‘sword’ and not a ‘shield’, thus, the rules of pleadings apply with the same force and potency to a counter-claim and a defence to a counterclaim as they are respectively a statement of claim and a statement of defence. That the defendant/counterclaimant is required by law to satisfy the Court. In doing this, the onus of proof lies on the counterclaimant to prove the averments in his counterclaim against the claimant or his claim will totally fail. That the defendant counterclaims against the claimant for One Hundred and Eighty Thousand Naira (N180,000.00) representing one month’s salary of the claimant in lieu of notice of resignation without any reference to any pleading whatsoever in support of the averments for the said counterclaim. That the same counterclaim is bound to fail because the defendant’s General Manager by Exhibit C5 dated 26th October 2010 replied and accepted the claimant’s Exhibit C4 and further promised to pay the claimant’s arrears of salaries. Therefore, that the defendant is herein estopped from using the counterclaim as a shield instead of sword hence the defendant has already admitted the receipt and acceptance of Exhibit C4 and so there was no need to prove same again before the Court, urging the Court to so hold and referring to Unokan Ent. Ltd v. Omuvwie [2005] 1 NWLR (Pt. 907) 293 CA. The claimant then adopted paragraphs 1 – 18 of the statement of fact dated 10th August 2013, paragraphs 1 – 5 of the claimant’s reply to the statement of defence/defence to counterclaim dated 9th November 2012 and all the Exhibits admitted in evidence and urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant and dismiss the defendant’s counterclaim with substantial cost for non-disclosure of reasonable cause of action. On issue 4 i.e. whether the defendant is not liable to pay the claimant’s cost of litigation in this suit, the claimant asserted that paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 11 and 15 of the statement of fact dated 10th August 2012 established the facts of this case and the reason why the claimant approached the Court being the last hope of the common man. That Exhibits C1 and C2 evidences the defendant’s admission to various acts of breach particularly admitting owing the claimant’s arrears of salaries which the claimant averred in paragraph 11 of the statement of fact that she continued to visit the defendant’s officers to demand for her arrears of salaries but was turned down on each visit till the claimant got frustrated and therein employed the services of a counsel to do the needful and approach the Court where necessary. That the defendant’s unilateral refusal and the failure to pay such arrears owed to the claimant gave rise to this action. To the claimant, the rule is ubi jus ubi remendum (where there is right, there must be a remedy). The claimant then urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the claimant in the interest of justice and order as prayed in paragraph 18(viii) of the statement of fact dated 10th August 2012. I heard learned counsel in the matter and considered all the processes and submissions advanced. I indicated earlier that the defendant did not file any memorandum of appearance and was in addition disobedient to an order of this Court. The issue before the Court is whether the claimant is entitled to her claims; and whether the defendant is also entitled to its counterclaims. Before addressing the merit of these issues, I need to resolve the question of the admissibility of some of the exhibits frontloaded, in particular Exhibits C15, C16, C18 and C19. These exhibits are all internal memos, which were not signed unlike Exhibits C4 and C7, which are equally internal memos but are signed. It trite law that an unsigned document is inadmissible as it has no weight or probative value and as such serves no useful purpose. Exhibits C15, C16, C18 and C19 being unsigned documents are accordingly discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. The evidence before the Court shows that the defendant offered the claimant employment as an Accountant vide Exhibit C1, which the claimant accepted vide Exhibit C2. Exhibits C1 and C2 are Exhibit D1 frontloaded by the defendant. The claimant was then issued with an identity card, Exhibit C3. This means that there is a valid contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant; and I so find and hold. In this regard, the claimant is entitled to relief 1 i.e. “a declaration that the contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant and the consequent offer of employment made to the claimant by the defendant dated 1st June 2009 ipso-facto established a valid contract of employment between the claimant and the defendant company”; and I so declare. Given the valid contract of employment between the parties, the claimant is thereby entitled to be paid her full wages as may be agreed upon by the parties. By Exhibit C1, the initial salary of the claimant shall be Two Million, One Hundred and Sixty Thousand Naira (N2,160,000) only per annum which if divided by twelve months makes the monthly salary to be One Hundred and Eight Thousand Naira (N180,000) only. This is contrary to paragraph 6 of the claimant’s sworn deposition wherein she stated her monthly salary to be N181,000. In relief 4, this N181,000 is claimed as vacation allowances. In reliefs 2 and 3, the claimant is claiming for her salary for the months of February – April 2010. If the monthly salary of N180,000 is multiplied by 3 months (February to April 2010), what we have would be N540,000. Yet what the claimant is claiming for this period is N513,000 ostensibly based on an admission by the General Manager of the defendant vide an email, Exhibit C5. The defendant in Exhibit D4 dated 4th July 2012 (a reaction to Exhibit C10, wherein the claimant wrote to the defendant demanding for the payment to her of the sum of N513,000 as an outstanding payment) denied any indebtedness to the claimant in said sum of N513,000. The problem with Exhibit D4 is that while it is signed, it did not disclose the name of the signatory. It is merely endorsed “FOR: JOPA ENERGY LIMITED”. Its authenticity accordingly is doubtful. The claimant had resigned her appointment vide Exhibit C4 dated 20/10/2010. In paragraph 1, the claimant stated her last working day will be 23rd November 2010. In the 3rd paragraph, she stated that she was proceeding on her annual leave effective 8th November 2010; and she then asked for payment to her of the salaries owed to her for the months February 2010 – November 2010. On the face of Exhibit C4 is an acknowledgment of receipt of the original of Exhibit C4 by one Nkechi Alex Etafaroro on behalf of the defendant with the words, “This is effected from 1st Nov ’10” written on it. The acknowledgement is dated 28/10/10. Now when Exhibit C5 was sent as an email, it was dated 26 Oct 2010. The essential part of Exhibit C5 has been reproduced above in this judgment. In its first paragraph, the writer stated that the claimant stated her resignation to be with effect from 6th November 2010. However, the writer went on to state that the defendant accepts the claimant’s resignation letter but to be effected from 1st November 2010. This accords with the endorsement by Nkechi Alex Etafaroro on Exhibit C4 of the words, “This is effected from 1st Nov ’10”. So when the General Manager, Nkechi Chijioke, went on to acknowledge indebtedness to the tune of N513,000, this must be more believable than what Exhibit D4 sought to do. Between Exhibit C5 and Exhibit D4, therefore, Exhibit C5 (the email from Nkechi Chijioke, General Manager) seems more plausible and authentic than Exhibit D4. I am inclined to therefore putting more weight and probative value on Exhibit C5 than on Exhibit D4, issued on 4th July 2012 way after the claimant had resigned her appointment. Exhibit C5 is an immediate reaction to Exhibit C4 unlike Exhibit D4 that came about after close to two years of the claimant’s resignation. I pointed out earlier that in Exhibit C4, the claimant made a claim for her arrears of salary for the months February – November 2010. However, in relief 3, it is for the months of February – April 2010. Since Exhibit C5 is not the claim before the Court but merely brought in as evidence, relief 3 remains the actual claim of the claimant. It supersedes whatever is in Exhibit C4. Even here, I also indicated earlier that the monthly pay of the claimant is N180,000, which when multiplied by the 3 months of February to April 2010 gives us N540,000. However, the claimant is claiming only N513,000 as salary for this period (February – April 2010) based on the acknowledgment of the defendant in Exhibit C5. A claimant is at liberty to compromise his claims and take a lesser amount based on an admission by the defendant. Since this is the case here, I find and hold that the claimant is entitled to the N513,000 claimed as salaries for the months February – April 2010. In this respect, the claimant has succeeded in proving and so is entitled to reliefs 2 and 3 i.e. “a declaration that the claimant is lawfully entitled to full payment of her salaries having worked throughout the cause of her employment with the defendant including the months of February – April 2010 representing various months of non-payment of the claimant’s salaries by the defendant company”; and “an order of the Honourable Court directing the defendant to pay the claimant’s salaries from the month of February – April 2010 totalling Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira (N513,000.00) only”, respectively; and I so declare and order. Relief 4 is for “an order directing the defendant to pay the claimant vacation allowances totalling One Hundred and Eighty-One Thousand Naira (N181,000.00) only”. It has not been made out to the Court how the claimant arrived at this sum as her vacation allowances and for what period. In paragraph 8 of her sworn deposition, all the claimant averred to is that on 10th July 2010, she applied for vacation which was refused; and that also refused was the payment of vacation allowances. The claimant then referred to the 5th paragraph of Exhibit C1 which provides for annual leave in the following words – You shall be entitled to 14 (fourteen) working days leave after having completed each year of continuous service with the firm. There is nowhere in Exhibit C1 is it provided what the monetary value of vacation allowance is. The reference by counsel to the claimant to section 18 of the Labour Act 2004 in paragraph 4.4(a) of the claimant’s written address as justification for leave allowance was done in such an incoherent manner and only further depicts the failure of the claimant to prove her claim for vacation allowances. I, therefore, find and hold that relief 4 has not been proved by the claimant. Relief 4 is accordingly dismissed. Relief 5 is for “an order directing the defendant company to give the claimant her Tax Card or Tax Clearance Certificate having deducted One Hundred and Twenty-Eight Thousand Naira (N128,000.00) from the claimant’s salaries as Personal Income Tax (PIT) from July 2009 to October 2010”. This Court has no jurisdiction over tax matters and so cannot make the order as prayed by the claimant. The Court accordingly declines to grant relief 5. Relief 6 is for “interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 25% per month from February 2010 until full and final settlement of judgment sum”. This Court by Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited [2012] 27 NLLR (Pt. 78) 374 does not award pre-judgment interest. The claim for interest as per relief 6 is accordingly rejected and hence dismissed. Relief 7 is for “aggravated and exemplary damages in sum of Four Million Naira only for breach of contract and failure to pay the claimant’s salaries/vacation allowances as at when due for payment”. How the claimant arrived at the sum of Four Million Naira is not made out to the Court. Beyond referring the Court to section 19(d) and (e) of the NIC Act 2006, the claimant provided no evidence to justify the claim for aggravated and exemplary damages. Relief 7 accordingly fails and is hereby dismissed. In like manner, the claimant did not state how she arrived at One Million Naira as the cost of this action. In any event, relief 8 states the One Million Naira to be ‘estimated’. Relief 8 also fails and is accordingly dismissed. What remains to be considered is the counterclaim of the defendant. Reliefs a) of the counterclaim is for “the sum of One Hundred and eighty Thousand Naira (N180,000.00), representing one month salary of the claimant which she failed to pay the defendant in lieu of his (sic) notice of resignation on 28th October 2010”. Similarly, relief e) is for “a declaration that the claimant was in breach of the termination clause of the contract of employment dated 1st June 2009 by failing to give to the defendant one month salary in lieu of notice”. By Exhibit C5, the defendant accepted the resignation of the claimant and indicated its acknowledgment of indebtedness to the claimant in the sum of N513,000. The defendant cannot now turn round and be claiming for payment in lieu of notice. That right, if it did exist, has been waived by the defendant vide Exhibit C5. Counterclaims a) and e) accordingly fail and are, therefore, dismissed. Counterclaim b) is for “the cumulative sum of Eighteen Thousand Two Hundred Naira (N83,200) representing the cash balance which the claimant failed to remit upon her exit from the defendant company, the cash value of the company note book and bag, as well as the cash value of the starcomms phone still in the claimant’s possession”. There is no proof of this counterclaim by the defendant. It accordingly fails and so is dismissed. Counterclaim c) is for “the cost of employing the services of a firm of legal practitioners to undertake the defence of the defendant as well as make a counterclaim in the sum of One Million Five Hundred Naira (N1,500,000.00)”. Once again, there is no proof as to this relief. The counterclaim accordingly fails and so is dismissed. Counterclaim d) is for “interest on all the above sums at the rate of 21% interest per annum”. The principle enunciated regarding Kurt Severinsen v. Emerging Markets Telecommunication Services Limited applies with equal force here. The said counterclaim according fails and so is dismissed. Counterclaim f) is for “aggravated and exemplary damages for breach of the termination clauses in the contract of employment and wilful and or illegally withholding the defendant company’s document, more specifically the cheques listed herein in the sum of Five Million Naira (N5,000,000.00)”. Yet again, the defendant failed to prove this counterclaim. It is accordingly dismissed. I must state that what the defendant’s counsel did was just to list out heads of reliefs as counterclaims just so that he would be seen to have done something or just so that he would punish the claimant. There is nothing in the case file to indicate an iota of proof regarding any of the reliefs counterclaimed against the claimant. This type of advocacy leaves much to be desired of counsel and puts the legal profession in very bad light. It certainly does not say well of counsel. On the whole, and for the avoidance of doubt, the claimant succeeds only in terms of her claim for N513,000. It is the order of this Court, therefore, that the defendant shall pay to the claimant within 30 days of this judgment the sum of Five Hundred and Thirteen Thousand Naira (513,000) only being arrears of her salary for the months February – April 2010. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip