Download PDF
The claimant was employed vide a contract of employment on the 20th of July, 2011 by the defendant. On the 18th of July, he was engaged by the defendant to carry out a supervisory role of all operations of the defendant’s transport service, enforce all operational directives and any other job as handed over to him by the Managing Director upon resumption with an agreed monthly salary of N60,000.00 and the sum total of N720,000.00 per annum. As stated in the contract of employment, that he is entitled to 21 days working days annual leave and annual leave allowance and either parties is to give the other one month notice or salary in lieu of notice to terminate the contract. He diligently served the defendant while in employment for a year and forty-three (43) days but was never given the 21 days annual leave nor paid the equivalent in cash despite his repeated demands before his employment was purportedly and wrongfully terminated by the defendant on the 31st of August, 2012 without notice. He approached the defendant after his employment has been terminated demanding for payment of all his entitlements but was bluntly turned down by the defendant. After being turned down verbally by the defendants, he wrote personally to the defendant for the same demands on the 3rd of September, 2012 but did not get a response from the defendant. On the 14th of September, 2012 through his solicitors, he wrote another letter of demand but did not get a response. On the 15th October, 2012 his solicitors wrote a follow up letter but the defendant neither received nor acknowledged the receipt of the letter. Despite all his letters of demand for his entitlements the defendants remained unyielding and he has been subjected to serious hardship and suffering and had to borrow money to pay his children’s fees and house rent as a result of his purported wrongful termination. It was on this premise that he filed a complaint on the 11th of December, 2012 against the Defendant seeking the following: 1. The sum of N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being one month salary in lieu of Notice for termination of employment. 2. The sum of N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being the sum total of the prorate rate of the claimant’s pay for 21 working days leave which he never got from the defendant before the wrongful termination of his employment. 3. The sum of N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being the annual leave bonus/ allowance for the 21 working days leave before the purported and wrongful termination of employment. 4. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the 1st N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being the month salary in lieu of Notice per annum until judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 4% until after final liquidation. 5. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the 2nd N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being the sum total of the pro rata of the claimant’s pay for the 21working days leave. 6. Interest at the rate of 20% per annum on the 3rd N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira) being the annual leave bonus/allowance for the 21working days leave. 7. The sum of N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) being damages for breach of contract between the parties and wrongful termination of the claimant’s employment by the defendant and for injuries suffered by the claimant as a result of the wrongful termination of his employment by the defendant. 8. The sum of N1,000,000.00 (one million naira) as solicitor’s cost and cost of litigation. The Claimant at the trial of this case tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits CW1, CW2, AD1, AD2 and AD3. Miss Daerefama Lolomari, Head Human Resources testified for the defendant on the other hand, that the claimant was employed by the defendant vide a contract of employment dated 20th of July, 2012. That the claimant is expected to have spent the first year as part of his probationary period and without leave or leave allowance and shall be entitled to leave upon the formal application of any employee or in line with the leave roster of the company and as at the time the claimant left the employment of the defendant, in August, 2012, he was neither entitled to any leave nor leave bonus because he did not make any formal application which would have enabled the defendant to abridge its leave time table to accommodate any exigency that the leave of the claimant might require. The defendant denies that it never terminated the employment of the claimant but the claimant’s absence from duty was only noticed in September, 2012 and the termination letter does not emanate from it but was shocked to see the claimant’s letter captioned Re-downsizing, and upon receipt of the claimant’s letter dated 3rd of September, 2012 promised to investigate the matter as the defendant had no knowledge of such termination letter. The defendant further denies its indebtedness to the claimant in any sum or salary in lieu of notice because despite the fact the claimant absconded from duty, the defendant went ahead to pay his August salary on the 12th day of September, 2012 and also tried to investigate and resolve the issues upon receipt of the letters from both the claimant and his solicitors but the claimant frustrated all efforts made by the defendant to resolve issues by not honouring the defendant’s invitation. The defendant also denies not being responsible for any damages as a result of the alleged pains suffered by the claimant and urged the Honourable court to dismiss this suit in its entirety on the ground of it being entirely unmeritorious, gold digging, frivolous and abuse of court’s process. The defendant tendered in support of his case a document which was admitted and marked as Exhibit DW1( i.e. the deposit slip for payment of August salary of the claimant). The claimant on the 10th of May, 2013 filed a reply to the defendant’s Statement of Defence stating that he is entitled to the 21 days annual leave and leave bonus because he had completed the 12 running months with the defendant as at the 17th of July, 2012 as stated in the contract of employment and the probation period is three (3) months that there is no clause in the contract of employment stating that his entitlement to leave would only be upon formal application and he never left the employment of the defendant rather his employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant without notice or salary in lieu. He went on to state that there is no such thing as leave time table or formal application for leave or bonus in the employment practice or operation of the defendant that the defendant has no standard of operation or administrative procedure nor any administrative roster for any department’s member or staff rather the entire operations and administration of the defendant starts and ends with the Managing Director Mr. Boluwatife Harrison and the operation and administration of the defendant is at his whims and caprices. He also stated that his letter of termination emanated from the defendant for the following reasons: that the letter bears the letter head of the defendant, the defendant has no standard of administrative procedure other than the whims and caprices of the Managing Director. That immediately he was served with his letter of termination, he went to the Managing Director but he said that there was nothing he could do that the wisdom to reduce his staff was from God and he would not want to go against God. He persistently pleaded with the Managing Director to reconsider the termination of his employment but to no avail and instead walked out by one of the security attached to his office. He further stated that he was not the only one whose employment was terminated in this manner by the defendant, he mentioned one Mrs. Ruth Ileogben. The claimant stated that the defendant in his usual characteristics had through the same Managing Director in January, 2012 handed down a week verbal suspension without pay to him and one Mr. Gbolahan who is still in the employment of the defendant and the suspension was effected by the defendant without any written document whatsoever and that his wages for the week suspension was deducted from his salary, so it is not out of place for the defendant not to sign the letter of termination dated 31st of August, 2012. The claimant further wrote a letter dated 3rd of September, 2012 demanding for the payment of his entitlements. That the defendant did not express shock nor surprise at his said letter nor did it deny that the said letter terminating his employment emanated from it nor promise to investigate the issue, instead the defendant called the claimant four days after the letter of 3rd of May, that he should return all the properties of the defendant in his possession after which his entitlement would be paid. After he returned the properties of the defendant in his possession i.e., his 4 sets of uniforms, identity card and an official phone. The defendant paid only his August salary on the 13th of August, 2012. Neither him nor his solicitor was reached by the defendant and the wrongful termination of his employment by the defendant has caused him serious pain and hardship and also cost him his tenancy due to inability to offset his house rent as at when due. The claimant urged the court to hold that his case has merits and therefore entitled to the relief sought. The Defendant on the 1st of November, 2013 filed a final written address wherein two issues were framed:- 1. Whether the purported letter of termination of employment tendered by the claimant qualifies as evidence that can be relied upon by this Honourable court in deciding this matter. 2. Whether from the totality of evidence before the court the claimant is entitled to his claim as contained in his complaint before the court On issue one learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the unsigned letter of termination of employment tendered by the claimant is a worthless paper which ought not to be admitted in the first instance and even when it is admitted, the court is by law not allowed to ascribe any value to the unsigned document. He cited the case of OMEGA BANK PLC V O.B.C LIMITED [2005] 1 SC (PT.49) AT PG. 74 where the Supreme Court held that: “A document which is not signed does not have any efficacy in law. The document is worthless and a worthless document cannot be efficacious” Also on issue one, the learned counsel cited the case of S.P.D.C (NIG) LTD VS. DALIBU [2010] 2 NWLR (PT.1178) 21 and submitted thus that the purported letter of termination of employment of the claimant by a company registered under the Company and Allied Matters Act without the name and or signature of any officer of the company should not have been admitted in the first place and the fact that it has been admitted does not give it any probative value and the court is enjoined to expunged such document from its evidence to be relied upon in deciding the issue before it. He cited in support the case of BROSSETTE MANUFACTURING NIG LTD VS ILEMOBOLA LTD &3 OTHERS [2007] 5 SC 84 Learned counsel further submitted that the purported letter of termination of the claimant’s employment which is clearly an unsigned document cannot sustain any claim against defendant because the document is a worthless document and one cannot build something on nothing and expect it to stand. On issue two, it was contended that assuming but not conceding that the claimant's contract of employment was wrongfully terminated, is he entitle to claims of the sum of N5, 000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) as general damages and N1,000,000.00 (One Million Naira) as solicitor’s fee for instituting the action against the defendant and salary in lieu of notice as well as leave bonus and interest on all sum claimed. Counsel submitted that a claimant who succeeds in proving wrongful termination is entitled to the period in lieu of notice provided in his contract of employment. However in the instant case the claimant’s contract was never terminated but he absconded from duty post and turned around to claim for damages. His employer told him to continue working while the purported letter is being investigated but he refused to work after he received the purported letter of employment dated Friday 31st August, 2012 and ignoring the directive of his employer, through the head of Human resources to continue his work, he put in a letter on Monday, 3rd of August, 2012 demanding for various sum of money he considered to be his entitlement from his employer. Continuing, counsel stated that judging from the circumstance of the case, the termination is more of an induced termination since there was no any name or signature of the officer of the defendant on the said letter of termination and also that the claimant cannot show that he worked for extra one day after he received the purported letter of termination of his employment in line with his employer’s directive without being paid his salary or entitlement. Counsel went on that assuming without conceding to the fact that the claimant employment was actually terminated, is he entitled to his claim he cited the case of MOMOH V C.B.N (Supra) at 441 where the Court of Appeal per Omoleye J.C.A stated thus: “The law is trite that there are three types of employer/employee relationships with related consequences. These are: i) Under the common law, where in the absence of a written contract each party could abrogate the contract on a weeks or month’s notice or whatever the agreed period for payment of wages. ii) Where there is a written contract or employment between an employer and employee, in such a case the court has a duty to determine the rights of the parties under the written contract (iii)(a) public servants, where their employment is provided in a statute and or conditions of service or agreement. (b) public servants are in the civil service ” He submitted that at best the claimant’s services belong to the second group in which the implication of this is that he is either paid a month salary in lieu of notice if his appointment is terminated or he pays a month salary to his employer if he resigns or absconded from duty and he cited in support the case of OSISANYA V AFRIBANK PLC [2004] 4 M.JS.C where the Supreme Court held on the measure of damages where a servant is wrongfully dismissed as follows: “A servant should be paid for the period he has served his master and if he is dismissed, all he gets is the amount he would have earned if his employment has been properly determined” Learned counsel also submitted that what the claimant would have been entitled to is a month salary which is N60,000.00 (Sixty Thousand Naira). Therefore his claim for N5,000,000.00 (Five Million Naira) and the solicitor’s fees must fail. Learned counsel further submitted that a claimant who seeks interest must prove why he or she is entitled to interest he cited in support the case of ABUBAKAR V MADIBO [2008] ALL FWLR (PT.409)751 and posited that there is no evidence to justify the claim for interest since the defendant having rebutted the claim for interest in its pleadings and testimony, the burden shifted to the claimant to prove the justification for his claim for interest and having not discharged this burden the claim for the interest whether for 20% or any amount at all fails. It is trite that a claimant who seeks a declaration of his right must show by preponderance of evidence that he is entitled. There is no any evidence that the claimant’s letter of termination originated from the defendant. Learned counsel finally submitted that the claimant has failed woefully to prove his case for wrongful termination thus his claims must fail since the claimant’s burden of proving wrongful termination has not been discharged. He urged the court to dismiss this action with substantial cost. The Claimant on the 13th of January, 2014 filed a final written address wherein two issues were framed for the consideration of the Court:- 1. Whether from the totality of the evidence given before this court, the court would not believe that the claimant’s employment was wrongfully terminated by the defendant. 2. Whether the claimant is not entitled to his claim as submitted before this Honourable Court. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that Exhibit CW1 the contract of employment freely entered into by the parties formed the basis of the relationship between the parties to this suit in which its terms therein states that the claimant is entitled to a month Notice or one month salary in lieu of Notice before his employment can be terminated and 21working days annual leave upon completion of 12 months with the defendant. Continuing, counsel posited that there is nowhere in Exhibit CW1 that the claimant shall be entitled to the 21 working days annual leave upon formal application and neither the form in which the termination of the claimant employment would be effective was stated therein, whether through a letter signed or unsigned, verbal or through internal memo or through any of its agents. He submitted that the operative terms as per the termination of employment in Exhibit CW1 is that the claimant is entitled to one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice and vice versa and that the claimant shall be entitled to 21 working days annual leave upon completion of 12 months in the defendant’s employment therefore the basis of the relationship between the parties to this suit is Exhibit CW1 and parties are not allowed to bring extrinsic evidence or issues into same. He cited in support the case of BANK OF NIGERIA LTD V PROFESSOR ALBERT OJO OZIGI [1994] 3 NWLR (PT. 333) PG. 385 AT 400 where the Supreme Court held thus: “The general rule is that where the parties have embodied the terms of their contract in a written document extrinsic evidence is not admissible to add, to vary, subtract from or contradict the terms of the written instrument” “where a document is clear, the operative words in it should be given their simple and ordinary grammatical meaning” Also in JFS INVESTMENT LIMITED V BRANAL LINE LIMITED [2010] 18 NWLR (PT.1225) 495 SC the court held that: “The general rule is that where the words of any instrument are free from ambiguity in themselves and where the circumstances of the case have not created any doubt or difficulty as to the proper application of the words.... An instrument is always to be construed according to the strict plain and common meaning of the words themselves” Learned counsel continued that from the above cited cases, it is evidently clear that the form in which the termination of the employment of the claimant was never agreed upon or envisaged in the agreement and hence parties are not allowed to bring same into written agreement. It is submitted that the claimant’s employment was terminated by Exhibit CW2 an unsigned letter from the defendant which the defendant never denied until trial. The claimant went on that he has no issue with that, but with the condition precedent which the defendant had not observed, which is the issue and service of one month Notice on him or one month salary in lieu of Notice and though Exhibit CW2 unsigned and worthless was an effective instrument used by the defendant to terminate the claimant’s employment. He placed reliance on the case of SHEWA V AFROPAK [2008] 5 SCNJ 70 where the Supreme Court held thus: “where a contract of service 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. 1998 LFN, 1990” Counsel also submitted that the claimant made serious allegation that the defendant’s alter ego ordered him out of his office when he took Exhibit AD1 to his office and that he was only contacted by the defendant about 4 four days later after Exhibit AD1 was delivered to the defendant that he should return the defendant’s property in his possession before his August 2012 salary was paid. Claimant also alleged that he had earlier been suspended by the Managing Director of the defendant verbally and same was effective. Since none of these allegation and facts were denied by the defendant in anyway, counsel posited that it is a settled principle of law that when facts are alleged by a party and the opposing party chose not to oppose same, those facts are deemed admitted. He cited BROADLINE ENT LTD V MONTERY MARITIME CORP [1995] 9 NWLR (PT.417)163 where the Supreme Court held that: “it is trite that what is admitted needs no further proof” AUDU V NDUIBISI [1997] 3 NWLR (PT. 493) 360 CA where the court held that unchallenged credible evidence should be accepted and believed by the Court. Continuing, counsel contended that defendant admitted that it never wrote any letter or pass any communication either to the claimant or through his solicitors disassociating itself from Exhibit CW2 despite Exhibit AD1 and AD2 and submitted that the silence of the defendant in this obvious situation is deemed as consent and authorship of Exhibit CW2 relying on N.B.A V FOBOUR [2006] 13 NWLR (PT. 996) PG.196; OKESOTO V TOTAL NIGERIA PLC [2010] LPELR 471(CA). That the blanket denial by the defendant that Exhibit CW2 did not emanate from it was an afterthought and there is no iota of truth because the defendant had ample opportunity to deny Exhibit CW2 from the 3rd September, 2012 and 14th September, 2012 when Exhibit AD1 and AD2 were delivered to it respectively uptill the 12th of December, 2012 when this action was filed but kept mute and this signifies to a great extent admission to the fact that Exhibit CW2 actually emanated from it therefore he cannot be allowed now to deny that Exhibit CW2 does not emanate from it as “Equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent”. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation that the claimant absconded cannot be allowed to hold water given from the totality of evidence adduced by parties in court, the defendant never denied the allegation made against it by the claimant. He contended that the defendant did not hand down any form of punishment to the claimant for absconding from duties neither did they reply the claimant solicitor and allege that the claimant absconded duty nor did it exercise its rights as contained in Exhibit CW1 as to demand for one month Notice salary in lieu of Notice from the claimant even after the receipt of Exhibit AD2 and AD3 and submitted that all these allegation by the defendant that the claimant absconded from duty is an afterthought and there is no truth in them because no evidence was adduced in favour of the assertion by the defendant. He further submitted that under cross examination, DW the Head of Human Resources of the Defendant and in charge of all the employees of the defendant was unable to say when the claimant absconded from duty. He cited the position of the Court in ANTHONY IDESOH & ANOR V CHIEF PAUL ORDIA &5 ORS [1997] 3 NWLR (PT.491) 17 AT 21 where it held thus: “An assertion may be properly described as an allegation. It will remain an allegation unless it is proved by evidence. An assertion by a party or his witness is one thing and the production or giving of evidence to prove the assertion is another” Learned counsel finally submitted that the claimant in this suit had placed before this court cogent unchallenged evidence to the effect that his employment was terminated wrongfully by the defendant with Exhibit CW2 and therefore entitled to his entire claim as sought and submitted before the court. Having carefully gone through the processes filed by both parties, documents tendered and admitted on record and the written submissions of the parties in support of their respective position, it is my humble view that the issues for the court’s verdict are: 1. Whether the termination of employment of the claimant by the defendant is wrongful and the nature of the purported letter of termination. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to the claims sought before the Honourable Court. The claimant in his statement of fact averred that on the 31st of August, 2012 the defendant without notice purportedly and wrongfully terminated his appointment. The defendant in response denies it wrongfully terminated the claimant’s appointment by stating the claimant absconded from duty under the pretence that he is acting in line with an unsigned document which did not emanate from it and even told the claimant to continue working while the matter is being investigated but he flagrantly left his duty post four days after he received the letter. In UJAM V I.M.T &ORS [2011] 24 N.L.L.R (PT. 68) 183 where this court held that on the proof of wrongful termination of employment, a plaintiff who seeks a declaration that the termination of his appointment was wrongful must prove the following material facts. (a) that he is an employee of the defendant; (b) the terms and conditions of his employment; and (c) the way and manner and by whom he can be removed. In the instant case, parties joined issues with regard to paragraphs (a) and (b) above in that they agreed that the claimant was an employee of the defendant and that is regulated by the contract of employment as evinced by exhibit CW1 . They however, hold a divergent views on (c) , in that while the claimant averred that the termination letter i.e. exhibit CW2 was given to him by the defendant, contrary to this the defendant denies same. A close look at Exhibit CW2 the purported letter of termination though having the name of the defendant company, reveals that it is unsigned by the Managing Director or anyone responsible for signing same. As a matter of law, documentary evidence can be admitted in evidence as long as it is relevant. After all relevancy is the precursor of admissibility. In the hierarchy of our adjectival law, probative value comes after admissibility. And so a document could be admitted without the court attaching probative value to it. The question whether or not an unsigned document attracts any evidential weight was answered by the Court of Appeal in the case of ABEJE & ANOR. V. APEKE (2013) LPELR-20675(CA) where it was succinctly put thus: "Unsigned documents our courts have held, should attract little or no evidential weight. See Jinadu & Ors vs. Israel Esurounbi-Aro & Anor. (2009) 9 NWLR part 1145 page 55 at p.81. Indeed many decisions say that an unsigned document is a worthless piece of paper that has no evidential value. See Amaizu vs. Nzerube (1989) 4 NWLR part 118 page 755. It has to be said though that it is not everything in writing that goes under the rubric of "document" that will lose its evidential worth simply because it is not signed. For example, where parties do not deny the existence of a contract of affreightment, the fact that they did not sign it cannot be a ground that they are not bound by it, barring a statutory provision. See Awolaja vs. Seatrade GBV (2002) 4 NWLR part 758 Page 520 at p.532." Per DANIEL-KALIO, J.C.A. (Pp. 23, paras. B-F) It is obvious from the above decision that unsigned document may be worthless as the general rule, but there are exceptions to that general rule, in that in some instances such documents may carry some evidential weight. The claimant alleged that after he received the purported letter of termination of employment he went to the Managing director of the defendant to plead with him but he was walked out by the security attached to the office and that sometime in 2012, he had been suspended by the defendant verbally and same was effective. Could the claimant author such a letter? It sound preposterous for an employee to embark on such a venture in this time when millions of graduates are unemployed. It is in the considered view of the Court that a reasonable and sane man would never write his 'death warrant'. The defendant on the other hand stated that it was shocked when the claimant presented it with the termination letter but did not ask him to continue with his work. She only urged the claimant to give her time to investigate the source from which the letter of termination emanated from. The defendant never disclaimed its knowledge of the purported letter of termination neither did they reply to the letters of demand sent to it by the claimant's solicitor and the claimant's letter written on 3rd September 2012 i.e. 3 days after exhibit CW2 was written. Rather they asked him to return the company's properties with him before they could pay his August salary. The Court of Appeal in ZENON PETROLEUM V IDRISIYYA [2006] 8 NWLR (PT.982)221 held that failure to respond to official communications raises an irrebutable presumption of admission by conduct of facts alleged therein . See also TRADE BANK V CHAMI [2003] 13 NWLR (PT. 836) 158; GWANI V EBULE [1990] 5 NWLR (PT.149) 201. In this case failure of the defendant to respond to the two letters written by the claimant solicitor and the claimant himself lends credence to the claimant's claim and admission of the fact stated in the letters. Also, the defence did not adduce evidence in court on how it investigated the source of Exhibit CW2 nor controverted the assertions of the claimant against it. It is trite that when evidence on an issue is uncontroverted and unchallenged by the other party, the court is bound to accept the evidence in support of the case. NIROWI V AKINGBULUGBE [2013] 37 N.L.L.R (PT. 114) 317; N.B.A V OKPONIPERE [2013] 15 NWLR (PT.1378) 584; OLATEJU V COMM.,L., &H., KWARA STATE [2010] 14 NWLR (PT.1213) 297 AT 305. The judex in evaluating evidence must take into consideration every little aspect of it, and the surrounding factors or circumstances. It is not for the judge to accept evidence hook, line, and sinker without weighing its preponderance and probability. It is found from the evidence before me that the evidence of the claimant as regards the letter of termination placed on the balance of probability weighed higher than that of the defendant on this issue. I find from all the above evidence that the defendant in fact and by conduct dispensed with the services of the claimant vide exhibit CW2 and thus terminated the employment of the claimant. I say so in view of the assertion of DW, the head of human resources of the defendant who admitted seeing the letter but did not ask the claimant to disregard same, but only urged him to give her time to investigate same. The purported investigation according to her is ongoing since August 2012. She equally urged him to return the company's properties. The law is trite that it will be invidious to foist a willing employee on an unwilling employer. Although the claimant had stated under cross examination that he is willing to continue his work with the defendant, it is however, obvious from the conduct of the defendant that it is no longer willing to have the claimant as its staff ( especially when it had retrieved all its properties from the claimant). This is also a clear indication of the antics engaged in by most employers to shy away from paying the salary in lieu of notice to an employee whose services they no longer require. I find that though exhibit CW2 is unsigned which ordinarily should be regarded as worthless, the letter is viewed differently in this instance considering the surrounding circumstances of the letter as deduced above, on the authority of the decision of the Court in ABEJE's case, it is in the candid and humble view of this Court that the defendant is not completely ignorant of same and thus exhibit CW2 still forms part of the record of this Court. The attitude of the management of the defendant is nothing but barbaric and an unfair labour practice in another colour. I again entertain no reluctance in holding whatsoever that the defendant has by conduct terminated the employment of the claimant. In answering the second question, which is whether or not the claimant is entitle to reliefs sought?. The claims of the claimant are as endorsed on his complaint and reproduced above. The damages payable for any employment that has been terminated are not at large. They are circumscribed by the conditions of service. An employee whose employment was wrongfully terminated is only entitled to what he would have earned over the period of notice and other entitlements if any. The case of N.E.P.A. v. ADEYEMI [2007] 3 NWLR (Pt. 1021) 315 at 336 - 337,Paras.G - C, is apt. See also IFETA V S.P.D.C NIG. LTD [2006] 8 NWLR (Pt.983) 585. The employment relationship of both parties is regulated by the contract of employment i.e. exhibit CW1. Recourse would therefore, be had to exhibit CW1. In the instant case, the claimant’s employment was terminated on the 31st of August, 2012 without notice of any sort, to this end he is entitled to be paid one month salary in lieu of notice not given to him by the defendant as agreed by both parties in exhibit CW1. Also, a vivid perusal of the letter of employment, specifically the clause that provides for 'Annual Leave' which read thus - “You will be entitled to annual of 21 working days after the completion of 12 running months with the company” It is evident in exhibit CW1 that the claimant was employed by the defendant on the 20th of July, 2011 and exhibit CW2 which has been held to have terminated his employment was dated 31st August 2012. In other words the claimant worked for the defendant for 13 months and 11 days. It is not in dispute that the claimant is entitle to 21 working days leave in a year. This is clear from the clause reproduced above as contained in exhibit CW1. It was the assertion of the defendant that for the claimant to be entitle to a leave under the above clause he ought to have applied for same, failing which he is foreclosed from claiming same. In the case of UBN PLC. V. ISHOLA [2001] 15 NWLR (PT. 735) 47 the Court held that where the words of any instrument are free from ambiguity in themselves and where the circumstances of the case have not created any doubt or difficulty as to the proper application of the words under the instrument or the subject matter to which the instrument relates, such instrument is always construed according to the strict, plain and common meaning of the words themselves. In this case there is nowhere in the letter of employment stating that the claimant ought to make a formal application before he can be entitled to annual leave the only qualification to an annual leave as stated in the letter of employment is a completion of 12 running months with the company in which the claimant has completed with an extra forty two (42) days which entitles him to his annual leave and since his employment was terminated before he could go on leave he is entitled to the benefits therein. I so find and hold that the claimant has proven claims one and two. Finally, the claimant is claiming the sum N5,000,000.00 as damages for breach of contract between the parties and wrongful termination of claimant’s employment by the defendant and for injuries suffered as a result of the wrongful termination of employment by the defendant. It is trite that an award of general damages is at the discretion of the court and the award thereof should be such as may be fairly and reasonably. Damages are awarded compensation to the plaintiff for the damages, loss or injury which he has suffered. However, before damages can be recovered by a claimant, there must be a wrong committed which must be attributable to the breach of some duty by the defendant. Having held that the defendant terminated the appointment of the claimant by conduct without paying his entitlement, which are as decided above his one month salary in lieu of notice and leave allowance. The claimant is entitle to damages for having kept his faith hanging and also withheld his salary. I so find and hold. The claimant fails to proof the claims on interest, accordingly the claims on same fails. In the light of everything that has been said in the foregoing, I make the following orders- I. That the claimant is entitle to one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice for termination of his employment by the defendant. 2. That the defendant should pay the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice, i.e. the sum of N60,000.00 3. That the claimant should be paid a leave bonus of N60,000.00 by the defendant. 4. That the 21 days leave entitlement of the claimant should be converted into monetary benefit and be paid by the defendant in the sum of N42,000.00,( i.e. N2,000 per day multiply by 21 days). 5. That the claimant is entitle to damages which should be paid by the defendant, which is assessed at N100,000.00. 6. All the above sums should be paid by the defendant within 30 days of this judgment. Cost of action should be borne by parties. Judgment is accordingly entered. HON. JUSTICE OYEWUMI OYEBIOLA O. JUDGE