Download PDF
The Claimant caused a complaint to be filed against the defendant jointly and severally in this case claiming the following reliefs: 1. A DECLARATION that the Claimant/Appellant, a staff of Mainstreet Bank Estate Company Limited Termination of employment unlawful, illegal and irregular. 2. A DECLARATION that for not following the Collective Agreement of the company, the termination is unlawful, illegal and irregular. 3. A DECLARATION that the reason for the termination of the Claimant/Appellant not stated. 4. AN ORDER of this Honourable court compelling the respondent to accord the Claimant/Appellant all her rights, privileges and benefits attached to the office of the Executive Officer. 5. AN ORDER of this Honourable court compelling the respondent to pay the Claimant/Appellant her entitlement accruing to the Claimant /Appellant as Executive Officer in the sum of N522,721.30. 6. INTEREST on the said sum of N522,721.30(Five Hundred and Twenty two Thousand, Seven Hundred and Twenty One Naira Thirty Kobo) at the rate of 22% per annum with effect from the date the claimant’s service was no longer required and thereafter at 21% per annum until the entire judgment is liquidated. 7. The sum of N400,000.00 (Four Hundred Thousand Naira) to the claimant as general damages. It is the case of the claimant that she was employed by the defendants vide an appointment letter on the 22nd of September, 2008 as a confidential secretary on the grade of Deputy Manager. Her appointment was later confirmed on the 15th of December, 2009 but took effect from the 4th of January, 2010. In March, 2010, the Managing Director demoted its staff from their various positions his reason was that the positions were high for them hence, claimant was also demoted from the post of Deputy Manager to an Executive Officer which affected her salary. The claimant averred that in the course of her employment, she was given Afribank Estate Company Ltd’s Staff Handbook containing condition of service which was reviewed by both the Managing Director and the Administrative Manager without the approval from the Board and National Secretariat of Union. The claimant averred that she never received a query since she joined the company except on the 25th of May, 2010 when she received an internal mail caption “final warning” without stating the offence committed but in inquiry from the Acting Administrative Manager she was informed that the Managing Director’s Office Assistant, left the Managing Director’s plate outside his office. That on the 20th of January, 2012 she was redeployed to the Accounts Department and on the 13th of April, 2012 her employment was illegally terminated without any reason and the amount calculated as her entitlement was wrong. She wrote through her lawyers to the defendant on the 2nd of October, 2012 demanding her entitlements. 1. She is entitled to two months salary in lieu of notice – N187,833.34 2. Pension Fund deducted from her salary was not remitted to the Pension Scheme (a) August to December, 2009. - N10, 009.05 (b) January to December, 2010.- N24,016.92 (c) January to December, 2011.- N24,016.92 (d) January to April, 2012. – N 8,005.64 Totalling N66,046.53 3. That the National Housing Funds deducted from her salary but not remitted are: (a) August to December, 2009. – N3,312.50 (b) January to December, 2010.- N5,550.00 (c) January to December, 2011.- N5,550.00 (d) January to April, 2012. – N 1,850.00 (e) Short payment of salary in October/November, 2008 (N12,658.16 *2) - N25, 316.36 (f). 12 days of salary for the month of April, 2012 – N40,697.22 (g). Staff Providence Fund (SPF) – N 14,700.00 Total N95,976.08 (h) Leave Allowance for the year 2012 N33,120.00 (i) Leave Days outstanding to be committed to cash. N 139,745.35 Grand total = N522,721.30 The claimant at the trial of this case tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits B1, B2, B3,B4, B5, B6, B7, B8, B9, B10, B11, B12, B13, B14 and B15 The defendant on the other hand denies paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9, 12, 14 of the claimant’s statement of claim stating that the affairs and operations of the defendant are not in the nature of “one man’s business” hence decisions on issues is taken by the management and the Managing Director in his personal capacity. Defendant also denies the averment made by the claimant that it’s Staff Handbook was reviewed without the approval of the Board Members stating that the Staff Handbook which commenced operation in December, 2009 was reviewed by the management of the defendant in collaboration with the executives of the employees and shall at trial rely on the claimant’s letter of employment and the staff handbook as the contract documents regulating the relationship between the claimant and defendant. The defendant denies the averment of the claimant that she was not issued any query when it was apparent that she was incompetent to handle the position she occupied, she exhibited negligence, and carelessness in the manner she handled information and document hence causing embarrassment to the defendant. When the situation was unbearable, she was redeployed to Account department as against being sacked. That the claimant is only entitled to one month salary in lieu of notice and not two months salary in lieu of notice as averred by the claimant and on the issue of Pension Trust Fund and Housing Fund the idea is that a portion of the defendant’s employees, claimant’s inclusive salary deducted making 100% contribution of the value/amount contributed by the employee. The employee of the defendant claimant inclusive have a pass book and account number in respect of each of the scheme that the claimant’s account number in respect of Trust Pension Fund is PEN 200430026515 and the defendant have no control whatsoever over the Pension Fund and National Housing Fund. Defendant further denies that it is indebted to the claimant in the sum of N12,658.16 as short salary for the period of October and November, 2008 and claimant not having worked for twelve months is not entitled to leave allowance as she worked for only three months. That the claims are unmeritorious, gold digging and should be dismissed with substantial cost. The defendant at the trial of this case tendered in support of its case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits OO1, OO2,OO3,OO4, and OO5 The claimant on the 19th day of March, 2013 replied to the defendant statement of defence stating that as regards the remittance of the claimant’s National Housing Funds and Pension Fund were done during the pendency of this suit to avoid liability for criminal conversion of the claimant’s entitlement that she was not aware of any account credited for her while she was in the defendant’s employment and the National Housing Fund issues Passbook with Account numbers to staff hence the implication of not having any of the above is that the interest that should be computed in the staff’s account is defeated. The claimant also stated that she was aware of the Pension Fund’s Account but reasserts that alert ought to have been given to the staff whenever Pension Fund is paid and no interest has been paid contrary to the Lagos State Act which stipulates that Pension Trust Fund must be paid at least two weeks of the end of every month. That there is no evidence of payment of same, since there is no approval attached from the company’s Head Office and statement from the agency to show that such monies have been remitted to the Pension Fund. Also, no evidence of Tax was remitted to Lagos State Tax office since the claimant never filled forms to the effect and the company in October and November, 2008 has two salary payrolls in a month, one taxable and the allowances to which the company withholds 70% before a decision was taken that the deduction should be on Senior Manager Staff and refund to the junior staff since then, the deductions in the sum of N80,000.00 (Eighty thousand Naira) made on the claimant salary has not been refunded. The claimant urged the honourable court to grant prayers stated in its statement of claim. The defendant on the 3rd day of February, filed its Written Address wherein two issues where raised for the Court's determination 1. Whether the termination of the claimant’s appointment by the defendant vide letter dated 13th April, 2012 was valid and lawful. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to her claims based in evidence placed before the Honourable Court. On issue one learned counsel submitted that it is trite that a master can terminate the contract of employment of his servant at any time and is not under any obligation to give reason for so doing. He cited in support OLANREWAJU V AFRIBANK PLC [2001] FWLR (PT 72) 2008 RATIO 5. He submitted that the claimant challenging the termination of her appointment on the premise that same was wrongful contravenes Clause 16 of the Afribank Estate Company Limited’s terms and conditions of service (Senior Staff) and Clause 9 of the Afribank Estate Company Limited’s Staff handbook of the 2nd and 3rd Review in the Collective Agreement which is in all fours with clause 16 which states: “Afribank Estate Company hold discipline in high esteem and every member of staff is expected to discharge their duties and responsibilities with the highest discipline. Observance of company rules and regulations is very necessary to ensure smooth running of the organization. Breaches of company rules and regulations and other cases of indiscipline will be dealt with as follows” Counsel contended that a careful perusal of the above provision particularly the statement “Breaches of company rules and regulations and other cases of indiscipline will be dealt with as follows” suggest that the procedure laid in Clause 16 or clause 9 of the staff handbook becomes applicable only where termination was based on any of the cases stated in the handbook. He submitted that it is trite that a servant who alleges that his termination was wrongful has a duty to prove the allegation therein. He went on to state that claimant relies on paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, and 11 to justify the allegation of wrongful termination. Counsel contended that claimant in paragraph 8 of her statement of claim averred that she received a “final warning letter” on the 25th of May, 2010 however, 10 months after the letter was served on her, she was promoted by the defendant on 1st of February,2011 and upon cross examination claimant admitted that her appointment was not terminated upon service of the purported final warning letter and she did not resign her appointment hence defence counsel submitted that since the purported final warning letter has been overtaking by event (promotion of 1st February, 2011) it cannot justify the ground upon which allegation of wrongful termination as stated by the claimant could be hinged. Counsel submitted that it is within the prerogative of the defendant to demote, promote and redeploy the claimant or any of its staffs from a department to another department. That claimant did neither plead nor led evidence at the trial that the defendant cut down her salary when she was redeployed and victimised before the court as alleged in paragraph 9 CW1 and such does not justify wrongful or unlawful termination for the purposes of compliance or invocation of clauses 16 or 9 staff handbook. He submitted that it is settled law that the onus to prove a fact is on the party who asserts its existence. He cited Section 131 of Evidence Act, HIGH GRADE MARITIME SERVICES LTD V FIRST BANK NIG LTD [1991] 1 NWLR (PT 167) 290; BABALE V EZE [2011] 48 AT 71 and submitted that a person who make allegation in a pleading is bound to produce evidence to substantiate it that in the instant case, the claimant failed to put before the court evidence that her termination was based on any of the reasons stated in clauses 16 or 9 of the staff handbook Learned counsel submitted that from the face of the claimant’s termination letter dated 13th April, 2012 there was nothing to show that her employment was terminated on the grounds of misconduct, breach of company rules or for any other reasons but says nothing other than “claimant’s services will no longer be required” hence burden is on the claimant to put before the court a convincing evidence and this she failed to do at trial. Also that the issues of whether the defendant complied or not to the provisions of clauses16 and 9 of various staff handbooks referred to by claimant is not relevant as regards termination except where it is shown that the claimant’s appointment was terminated under any of the cases provided in the terms and conditions of service which was not the issue in this instance. Counsel contended that the claimant by paragraph 27 of her written Statement on Oath alleged that “she could not get a job because of allegation of fraud made against her by the defendant”. However, at trial claimant failed to show document where allegation of fraud was levied against her. It is trite that fact not pleaded cannot be adduced to prove such fact. He cited the case of CIVIL DESIGN LTD V SCOA [2007] 29 NSCQLR AT 1339. He submitted that a witness is not entitled to the honour of credibility when he has failed to place before the court relevant evidence and where he has inconsistent evidence before the court. That claimant under cross examination admitted that the defendant is not into Banking business but real estate investment business, that she has never worked in a bank and she read French and has BSC from University of Jos. She did not tender the application she made seeking for job throughout the trial. Counsel urged the court to invoke the provisions of Section 149 (d) Evidence Act and hold that such document does not exist and if it does exist, it would be counterproductive to the case of the claimant if produced. On issue two, counsel submitted that claimant never controverted the fact that the defendant calculated claimant’s entitlement’s for collection but claimant rejected same on the ground that it was not correctly calculated. He stated that onus is on claimant to prove that she is entitled to 2months salary in lieu of notice with regards to the fact that claimant was on the 20th January, 2012 redeployed to account department in the cadre of Junior staff and contrary to the claimant’s claim, defendant has remitted claimant’s contribution of the National Housing Fund and Pension Scheme to appropriate organisation. Counsel contended that claimant failed to lead evidence in support of her claim for short payment in 2008. At trial claimant admitted that her salary was paid into her account and not by cash hence it behoves on the claimant to tender her statement of account at the trial to enable the court confirm the authenticity of her claim that it is not the judicial duties of the court to embark on voyage of discovery of evidence. Counsel also submitted that by Clause 12 of the defendant staff handbook, the claimant is not entitled to annual leave nor leave allowance by failing to fulfil the condition precedent of working for twelve calendar months in the year in question as provided in Clause 12 of the defendant staff handbook hence incompetent and he urged the Court to refuse relief 3. Learned counsel submitted that claimant by paragraph 25 (i) of her Written Statement of Oath failed to give detailed facts that would enable the defendant appreciate the complaint for instance, the year of the purported outstanding leave, the number of days that was outstanding and there was no application that the claimant applied that her “untaken or outstanding leave” be converted to cash. Counsel submitted that claim for special and general damages is superfluous all the claimant needs is claim for general damages that the court is not entitled to embark upon a self assessment of special damages except as strictly proved by evidence and particulars of the special damages were not given by the claimant as required by law hence claim fails and assuming without conceding, that the claimant is entitled to general damages for wrongful dismissal what she is entitled to is one month salary in lieu of Notice. He cited the case of OSUMAH V E.B.S [2004] 17 NWLR (PT 902) 332. Counsel finally urged the court to refuse the claims with substantial cost. The claimant on the 17th day of February, 2014 filed its Written Address wherein two issues were framed for determination: 1. Whether the claimant’s termination of appointment without following the procedure as laid down in the Collective Agreement encapsulate in the defendant Company’s Staff Handbook (Terms and Conditions of Service) 1, 2, 3 that defined the terms of engagement of the parties was arbitrarily wrongful, unlawful and irregular 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to her claims based on the evidence adduced before the Honourable court. Learned counsel submitted that an employer reserves the right to determine the employment at any time that the exercise of that authority is strictly guided by the extant labour laws of the Federation. He cited (Labour Laws and Collective Agreement, Labour Act, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004) and stated that it is trite that in an action for breach of contract of employment, all the Court is obliged to do is to enquire if proper procedure was taken in the termination of employment, such as notice in lieu or salary in lieu of notice and whether the employee’s entitlements have been paid. Counsel cited the case of OYULELE V IFE U.T.H [1990] 6 NWLR (PART 155) 194 C.A, Counsel submitted that claimant’s employment was regulated by defendant’s Condition of Service Handbook of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd and determined in strict compliance with the terms in the Handbook. That pages 15 to 17, paragraph 16 at 16 (c) laid down Disciplinary Procedures as follows: “An employee’s service may be terminated if within any period of 12 months, he had been guilty on three occasions of committing any act of misconduct for which at least 3 queries and 3 warning letters has been issued. Also, such an employee will face the disciplinary committee for interrogation in order to give him an opportunity to defend himself. The Disciplinary Committee will finally give their recommendation to the management for final decision” also, pages 23 and 21 of the 2nd and 3rd handbooks respectively particularly paragraph 9(b)(ii) of both handbooks states categorically that “Before a written warning is issued, the employee will first be given a written query and an opportunity of stating his case in writing”. Counsel submitted that none of the procedure as stated above was taken when dismissing the claimant that even the “final warning” given to the claimant in 2010 was admitted as an error by the defendant and thus promoted on the 4th day of February, 2011 to the grade of Assistant Manager which is the level of a Senior staff. Counsel also submitted that DW1 under cross examination admitted that the laid down procedure stated in pages 23 and 21 the 2nd and 3rd handbooks was breached in exercising the defendant’s authority over the claimant. Continuing, counsel submitted that it is settled law that while an employer is not bound to give reason for lawfully terminating contract of service he must give reason for summarily dismissing his servant. cited is the case of SAVANNAH BANK V FAKOKUN [2002] 1 NWLR (PT 749)544, RATIO 5 However, from the instant case, defendant departed from its own set procedures of termination, hence the termination of claimant’s employment is unlawful, wrongful and arbitrary for which the claimant is entitled to damages for breach of contract. The DW1 under oath could not say why the claimant’s appointment was terminated without due process but merely answered “I don’t know” Counsel submitted that it is trite that mere denial of factual situation without attacking the veracity of facts contained therein is in law not a denial. He cited JACOBSON ENGINEERING LTD VS UBA LTD [1993] 3 NWLR (PT283) 586 and states that defendant denies paragraph 21 of the Statement of Claim but shall at the trial require the plaintiff to strictly prove the averments contained therein, this according to the claimant does not amount to denial for the purpose of raising an issue for trial hence claimant’s claims on paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Statement on Oath should be taken as uncontroverted. Learned counsel also contended that DW1 under cross examination stated that at 2008 he was not in the establishment and thus not in the position of stating to the court the exert position of this suit. He submitted that DW1 cannot be seen as a credible witness in this suit. Counsel submitted that by paragraph 27 the claimant made and attended three interviews but was denied on the ground of her letter of termination from the defendant’s company and she is asking the court for a declaration that her termination of appointment was not terminated on the grounds of fraud, dishonesty or unethical conduct or malpractices since the defendant did not give reasons for the said termination. On issue two, learned counsel submitted that by paragraph 23 of the claimant Statement on Oath claimant’s states that the reviewed handbook allows her by virtue of her position as Assistant Manager to be entitled to two month’s notice or two months salary in lieu of notice and same was read out from Exhibit B5 by the DW1though when asked of the status under cross examination, DW1 stated that “I am not sure of the status of the claimant” this means that DW1 is not a credible witness whose testimony should be believed. Defendant also submitted that at the time of redeployment, on the 30th day of January, 2012 the claimant was never demoted, she was only transferred to another department. Hence, she remains entitled to two months salary in lieu of notice. Learned counsel submitted with regard to the Pension Trust Fund that the defendant only remitted the claimant’s Trust Fund during the pendency of this suit to avoid liability for their criminal conversion act. That from a critical look of the Pension Trust Fund, one will find out that some months are missing by the attached Defendant’s exhibit. That in January, 2009 the claimant’s number in the list is No.31 and no remittance was made; February, 2009 the claimant’s number is No. 28; March 2009, she is No. 23; April 2009, she is No. 23; May 2009, she is No. 20; June, 2009 she is No. 14; July 2009, she is No. 14; August and September, 2009, she is No. 13; October, 2009 she is No. 12; November 2009, she is No. 11 and December 2009, she is No. 10. Also in 2010, January, February and March, the claimant on the defendant’s list No.10, April she is No. 10; May, she is No. 8 and June she is No. 6 but the defendant company did not remit any Pension but deducted from the claimant salary. The defendant act of delay has cost the claimant her interest which could have been paid to her hence liable for lost of the claimant’s interest. With regards to the National Housing Fund, counsel submitted that the defendants failed to show separate account the monies were paid on behalf of all the staff since all the staff cannot maintain a single account the number that is on the Bank teller as exhibited by (Exhibits 001 – 005) and the DW1 when asked under cross examination if the claimant is entitled to National Housing Fund Passbook, he claimed “I am not aware that the clamant was given” Again, the National Housing Fund like Pension, one can continue with the fund irrespective of his place of work hence, the defendant was just deducting the claimant’s money and paying into its own account on its own behalf to deceive the staff that National Housing is being paid for them. That DW1 when asked to identify the specific account the said amount on the claimant’s column was paid, but he answered “I would not know that because no account was stated as in that of the Pension Trust” hence, the defendant never paid Housing Fund for the claimant from 2009 to April, 2012. Claimant submitted that this has to be reverted back to the claimant or defendant opens a proper account for the claimant with correct procedure for her to assess her National Housing Fund’s account. Counsel submitted that the defendant sent the claimant an Email dated Wednesday, April 17, 2013 with subject E-TCC Application Form. That this form is supposed to be Tax Clearance form and by virtue of Personal Income Tax Act, 2011, it provides that: 1. Employers are required to ensure monthly remittance of PAYE Tax not later than 10th day of every month following the month of deduction. 2. Maintain an Employer’s Remittance Card (form G) which should be completed monthly and signed by authorised officer at the period of remittance. Also, Lagos State Revenue Income Tax, Section 81 (2) of Personal Income Tax Act, 2011 provides: 1. Every employer shall be required to file a return with the relevant tax authority of all emoluments paid to its employees, not later than 31st January, of every year in respect of all employees in its employment in the preceding year. 2. Any employer who contravenes the provision shall be liable on conviction, that is failure to pay. Counsel cited the case of SHITTU V N.A.C.B LTD [2001] 10 NWLR (PART 721) 298, CA and submitted that claimant while in the course of her employment with the defendant, her tax was deducted and was never accounted for on her behalf that it was in court that Tax Application form was sent to her file. Counsel urged court to direct that all monies deducted from claimant's salary by the defendant. He urged the Court to direct the defendant to pay all monies on the claimant’s name and defendant who defaulted be punished accordingly. Counsel contended that with regards to short payment of salary in October/November, 2008, it is clear from the statement of account, defendant company paid claimant salary in two batches N39,836.94 and N28,271.06 total of N68,108.00, one taxable and other not deduction of N4,283.84 was made from her salary which totals N85,050.00 minus the deduction of N4,283.84. You have short fall of N12,659.16. Also in November salary, the defendant made two payments one is N38,944.29 another in December, 2008 is N48,300.04 and increase in the second payment was as a result of extra month made on pro-rata basis, with all deductions of N4,283.84 and short payment of N12,659.16 which made the claimant plead times two of N12,659.16 which is N25,316.36 (Twenty Five Thousand, Three Hundred and Sixteen Naira and Thirty- Six) and this was not controverted by the DW1 since he was not part of the Defendant’s company at 2008. Continuing, counsel submitted that the defendant is wrong to say claimant did not tender her statement of Account before the court when the claimant has placed a satisfactory evidence which is her statement of Account before court and on contention over twelve days of salary for the months April, 2012 of N40,697.22 and no contention over staff Providence Fund (SPF) contribution of N14,7000.00. Learned counsel submitted that the leave days outstanding to be committed to cash is the sum of N139,745.35 but was not given. Counsel further submitted that learned defence counsel contended that by paragraph 4 of the letter of appointment dated 22nd of September, 2008 given to the claimant, it states that “after you have been confirmed, you do not need to spend twelve months before claiming leave” the claimant was confirmed in 2008 and entitled to an annual leave of 35 working days but was not allowed to proceed on leave from 2009 to 2012 after her probationary period till when her appointment was terminated. Also page 12, paragraph 12(e)1 of the 1st handbook states that: “Accumulation of leave is permitted. Also, leave not taken may be commuted to cash at the discretion of the management. The basic earning of an employee shall be paid double to him/her for as many days of his/her annual leave that management commuted to cash.” And by page 13, paragraph 5 of the 2nd Handbook states that: “leave not taken may be converted to cash at the employee’s request subject to management approval” Claimant at several times wrote the defendants to have the outstanding of her leave monetized in the sum of N139,745.35 from 2008 to 2010 and also part of her leave of 2011 when she was promoted and salary arose to N 1,020, 600.00 (One Million, Twenty Thousand and Six Hundred Naira) and 2012 not taken. That the letter of termination of appointment proves that the defendant owes the claimant outstanding of 26days but cleverly did not state the year of the leave. That by paragraph 4 of the claimant’s letter of appointment provides that: “you shall be entitled to Annual Leave of 35 (thirty five) working days after you might have worked for 12 (twelve) calendar months. Your leave allowance is 12% of your annual basic salary.” Counsel submitted that claimant has sought general and special damages for unlawful, irregular and wrongful termination of her employment. He submitted that the vagueness of the claimant’s termination letter coupled with the arbitrariness of the defendant’s purported disciplinary action which raises different presumptions as to the character of the claimant, has unfairly ruined her chances of securing employment in any banking institution and parastatals in Nigeria and this has both psychological and emotional effect on the claimant. That she had been denied of her right in taxation and extorted off some money to the V.I.O in Lagos because of non-possession or evidence of tax payment to traffic offence hence claimant has stopped driving until she rectifies her position as regards to tax. The defendant’s refusal to pay the claimant her entitlement occasioned hardship and deprivation for all that period when the said termination letter also constituted an unfair bar to her securing other gainful employment. Finally counsel urge the court to so grant the claimant’s claims and the cost of instituting this suit. It appears to me after carefully going through all the processes filed on record including the written submissions of both leaned counsel in this case, that the main tissues giving rise to this action is whether or not the termination of the claimant's employment is lawful; and whether or not she has proven her case to entitle her claim as equally distilled from the written addresses by both parties. It is the contention of the claimant that her appointment was terminated by the defendant without giving her notice of two months or two months' salary in lieu of notice. She went on that she is a senior Staff of the defendant and not a junior staff as contended by the defendant. The defendant on its own part reiterated the elementary principle of employer/employee relationship, which is that an employer can hire and fire without giving any reason for so doing. To the defendant the claimant's employment was terminated by the defendant because they no longer require her services. The law is settled that an employer is not bound to be saddled with an unwanted staff, and may terminate the services of such employee without stating any reason for the termination. Katsina Alu JSC (As he then was) held in OLANREWAJU V AFRIBANK NIG PLC.[2001] 13 NWLR (PT 731) 691, that- '' In master and servant class of employment, the master is under no obligation to give reasons for terminating the appointment of his servant". The same principle was espoused in the case of ATIVIE V. KABEL METAL (NIG) LTD (2008) 10 NWLR (PT 1095) 399 AT 419, PARAS. F-C (SC). This is the position of the law except if the provision of their charter id est, conditions of service as represented by the employment letter the employees handbook states otherwise as it is in the instance case. If the defendant acted within the terms of the contract as agreed by both parties, then" Cadit quaestio' (that put part the issue/dispute). Otherwise the termination would be wrongful. The only damages available the claimant shall be damages for salary in lieu of notice. Now is there any provision in the contract of service regulating termination of employment? The claimant was employed vide letter dated 22nd September, 2008 as a "Confidential Secretary on a Grade of deputy Manager by exhibit B1; other entitlements stated therein are her remuneration put at N1,020,600.00 annum. Annual leave of 35 working days after working for 12 calendar months, leave allowance of 12% of annual basic salary and end of year bonus in December of every year calculated on prorata basis but must have worked for at least 3 months in a year. Her appointment was confirmed vide exhibit B2 on 15th December 2009 wherein her annual basic salary was adjusted to N270,900.00. The claimant was promoted vide exhibit B3 dated 4th February, 2011 to that of Assistant Manager with effect from February, 2011 and her annual salary was increased it to N1,127,000.00. Meanwhile it is observed that there are three documents representing the conditions of service of the defendant, id est exhibits B4, B5 and B15. I have had a diligent preview of the three staff hand books as tendered by both parties, and it is interesting to note issues bordering on termination or dismissal of appointment, notice to give for termination of allowance/bonus are all similar in tenor. Relevant portions shall be highlighted later in this judgment. The implication of this is that both parties are in law bound by the terms and conditions stipulated in the letter of employment and the 3 staff hand books. See EVBUOMWAN V ELEMA [1994] 6 NWLR (PT 353) 638; Omnoghen JSC, expounded on this in the case of OSUN STATE GOVT. V. DALAMI NIG LTD. [2007] ALL FWLR (Pt. 365) 439 at 40 Paras F-G (SC). thus- "Parties are bound by their agreement freely entered into. No party would therefore permitted to go outside it for remedy." The above stated documents regulates the relationship between both parties and nothing more. It is evident in exhibit B5 that an employee or employer is entitled to 2 months notice before termination of employment by either party, A staff of an Assistant Manager to Officer level, is entitle to 2 months notice. The claimant averred that she was an Assistant Manager when her appointment was unlawfully terminated, thus she falls under that category. It is on record that the defendant on the 25th of May, 2010 gave the claimant a final warning vide exhibit B6 for failure to improve her performance without issuing her a query/s. However, in 2011 she was promoted as an Assistant Manager. Which implies that she had improved on her performance for her to be promoted with increase in salary. It is pertinent to note that her letter of termination is without reason. This as stated supra is allowed in law. However, where the terms of the contract of service stipulates a procedure/s to be followed, same must be abide with before termination can be held to be lawful. In the instance case, all that the employer wrote in exhibit B8 is ''Services no longer required'' The so called phrase given as the reason for termination has to be considered in the light of the provisions of the staff hand book i.e. exhibits B4, B5 and B15 governing the termination of employment, which is binding on both parties, relevant clauses on termination are captured hereunder from the 3 exhibits as follows - Exhibit B4 provides- ''Termination An employee's service may be terminated if within any period of 12 months, he had been guilty on three occasion of committing any act of misconduct for which at least 3 queries and 3 warning letters has been issued. Also such an employee will face the disciplinary committee for interrogation in order to give him an opportunity to defend himself. The disciplinary committee will finally give their recommendation to the Management for final decision'' Exhibit B5. '' Severance of Employment Employment with the Company may come to an end in any of the following ways: 1. Termination Either the Company of the staff (through resignation) may opt to terminate the employment of a confirmed staff provided the following conditions are complied with: a. If a full Manager, give 3 months notice or pay 3 months salary in lieu. b. If Assistant Manager, to officer level 2 months notice or 2 months salary in lieu. c. If junior staff, 1 month notice or 1 month salary in lieu. On termination of appointment the staff will be entitled to his/her salary up to the date of termination. Exhibit B15 '' b. Termination after warning i. Where the services of an employee have proven unsatisfactory, he will be given a written warning...'' ''ii. Before a writing warning is issued, the employee will first be given a written query and an opportunity of stating his case in writing''. ''iii. An employee’s service may be terminated if within any period of 12 (twelve) months he had been on three occasions of committing any act of misconduct for which a warning letter has been issued. Termination may also only be applied on the third occasion provided warnings in writing having been given to the employee in respect of previous cases of misconduct, within the proceedings 12 (twelve) months. Persistent offenders, however, will be treated in accordance with the employee’s previous records even though warning letters may have been ineffective after 12 (twelve) months from the date of warning''. It is evident from all the above provisions highlighted that the defendant failed/refused to follow the procedure binding on it and the claimant in terminating her employment. This position was admitted by the defence witness under cross examination, when he admitted that the defendant did not follow the procedure on Page 21, of exhibit B5, before terminating the claimant's employment. Meanwhile in paragraph 10 of DW sworn deposition, he stated that the claimant was not competent/capable of handling her post, that she exhibited negligence, carelessness in the way and manner she handled information and documents which caused embarrassment to the defendant. This is a clear indication of the fact that the defendant had reasons for terminating the claimant employment but cleverly and intentionally refused to state same in her letter of termination; apparently because it did not follow the procedure as required by the staff hand books, as admitted by DW. I therefore find and hold that the claimant's employment was wrongfully determined by the defendant for having failed to follow the procedure in its terms and conditions of service. Having held that the claimant's employment was wrongfully terminated, what then is she entitled to in damages. As agreed by both parties, the claimant's entitlement in damages is the salary in lieu of notice she was supposed to have been given. See IFETA V. S.P.D.C. NIG. LTD [2006] 8 NWLR (PT983)585. In the instance case, by exhibit B 5, the claimant as an Assistant Manager is entitle to two months notice or two months salary in lieu of notice. I need to state at this stage that the defence witness stated that he is not sure of the claimant's status, while he an HND holder, is an estate officer and according to him he is a management staff, in other words he is of the same status as the claimant who was an Assistant Manager on record as provided in exhibit B 5. Exhibit B5 is unambiguous as regards the period of notice, it is highlighted thus- ''(b) If Assistant Manager to Officer level 2 months notice or 2 months salary in lieu ...'' There is no need to seek any external assistance to interpret the above provision. I therefore find and hold that the claimant is entitle to two months salary in lieu of notice as damages, which is the sum of N187,833.34 as salary in lieu of notice. Now, with regards to the non remittance of tax deducted from the claimant's salary, this Court has no jurisdiction bordering on issues of tax, the Court cannot thus pronounce on same. The claimant is claiming the sum of N66, 046.53 as sums deducted from her salary but was not remitted to her pension fund administrators from January 2009 to December 2009 and in 2010. The claimant went on to state that the amount was paid into her pension account while this case is ongoing. The Court admitted documents showing names of staff of the defendant and the amount deducted from each staff salary and a teller showing the remittances to the Pension fund administrators. That in the calm view of this Court has been taken care of by the defendant. facts admitted need no further prove. However, this Court is limited in power to give a verdict on a criminal act of a party. On a critical examination of the teller evincing payments of deductions from staff including the claimant, it is evident on exhibit OO6 that the defendant paid the sum of N513,592.50 on 31st of March, 2009, on 31st August 2010, the sum of N1,373,114.11 was remitted in September 22nd, 2010 this represents deductions from January 2010 to December 2010, the defendant remitted the sum of N2, 494,011.72 and in 2012, it paid the sum of N1,101,510.00 into trust fund account of staff listed in the list of staff names and amount deducted from their respective salaries. These are enough evidence for remittances made by the defendant to the Trust Fund Pensions PLC. Accordingly, the claim for pension fails. As regards the National housing fund, It is submitted that the teller attached to exhibit OO2 to OO5 cannot represent payment of the fund to the claimant's account, since the tellers represent the total sum of money paid. It is a matter of law and fact that National Housing fund contributors are entitled to be issued a card, similar to a savings account card/ Passbook, where remittances are shown as it is in a pass book. It is the evidence of the claimant that she was never issued one and does not know what is in her account to date. It is on record vide exhibit OO1, OO2,OO3,OO4 and OO5 that several sums of money were paid by the defendant into the Federal Mortgage Bank of Nigeria account in 2010, 2011 and 2012, now the question is how much is to the credit of the claimant as her contributions to the NHF. The sum of N6,300 was deducted from the claimant's salary in 2009, in 2010 the sum of N6,300 was deducted from her salary, in 2011 the sum of N6,025.00 was deducted from her salary, , while in 2012, the sum of N3,000 was deducted from her salary from January to March before terminating her employment. The to tal sum of N21,625.00 was deducted from the claimant's salary as NHF, without accounting for it by the defendant. There is no account number of the claimant wherein the said deductions were paid. What this implies is that the defendant did not pay the deducted sums into any account for the claimant, this was also admitted by the defendant's witness. I therefore finds that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N21,625.00 her NHF deductions. On the claim for salary shortfall, the claimant contended that her salary for the month of October and November were short paid in the sum of N12,658.16. contrary to the defendant assertion that the claimant did not tender her statement of account, the claimant tendered her statement of account which was admitted as exhibit B11, which shows that her October salary was paid less the sum of N12,658.16 same for the month of November 2008, consequent upon which it is found that the claimant is entitle to be paid the sum of N25,316.32 as salary short fall. As regards claimant's 12 days of salary being work done before the termination of employment, the defendant did not controvert or challenged this claim, it is thus deemed admitted. Accordingly, the claimant should be paid her 12 days salary unpaid in the sum of N40,697.71, the defendant equally admitted that it owes the claimant leave allowance for year 2012 only, while the claimant contended that the defendant owes her 2010-2012 leave allowances. It is obvious from the record that the only leave allowance that is proven by the claimant as her entitlement is the year 2012 leave allowance and 26 days outstanding leave this is evinced by exhibit B8 and B9, dated 11th April 2012 and 4th September 2012 respectively wherein the defendant listed what it termed the claimant's entitlements. It is thus found that the claimant is entitle to the sum of N60,301.00. Finally on the claim for special damages, it is long settled that special damages requires strict proof. It is found that the claimant has failed to give particulars of any special damages she is entitled to, it is in the light of this that claim for special damages fails. She is also praying for 21% interest on the sum claim until liquidated. It is in the considered view of the Court and in the exercise of my discretion that I hold that the claimant shall be paid 10% interest on all the sums she is entitle to summarise hereunder until liquidated. In conclusion, it is found supra that the claimant's claims succeed and is entitled to the her claims, which shall be paid by the defendant as follows. 1. The sum of N187,833.34 as two months salary in lieu of notice 2. The sum of N21,625.00 as NHF deductions. 3.The sum of N25,316.32 as October/November salary short falls. 4. The sum of N40,697.71 shall be paid as her 12 days salary unpaid in April 2012. 5. The sum of N60,301.00 shall be paid as 2012 leave allowance and 26 days outstanding leave. 6. The total sum of N335,773.37 shall be paid in full to the claimant within 14 days of this judgment, failing which 10% interest shall be paid by the defendant for each day of default. I award the cost of N50,000.00 in favour of the claimant. Judgment is accordingly entered. Hon. Justice Oyebiola O. Oyewumi Judge