Download PDF
The claimant on the 28th of June 2013 filed against the defendant praying the following reliefs: 1. THE SUM of N402,000.00 being the total sum due to the claimant from the defendant as follows: (a). The sum of N224,000.00, being arrears of salaries due to the claimant from July 2012 to October,2012 at a monthly salary of N 56,000 to be paid to the claimant. (b). The sum of N62,000.00 being the end of year (Annual) Bonus for 2011, which is a month salary without any deduction and was due to the claimant. (c). The sum of N54,000.00 being 8months arrears of contributory pension payments which the defendant had failed to credit to the claimant’s pension account with IBTC pension Managers at N6,750 per month even the same had always be debited from the claimant’s salaries. 2. INTERESTS on the sum of N402,000.00 (Four Hundred and Two Thousand Naira) at the rate of 25% per annum from the 31st of October, 2012 until judgment and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum until the whole judgment debt is liquidated. 3. GENERAL DAMAGES in sum of N500,000.00 for wrongful and unlawful termination of his employment. It is the case of the claimant that the defendant sometime in January, 2010 employed the claimant as a quantity surveyor. In January, 2011 the claimant’s total salary package was reviewed to N720,000 (Seven Hundred and Twenty Thousand Naira). On the 31st October, 2012 the defendant’s Managing Director Engr Akeem Babatunde with immediate effect verbally determined the employment without prior notice, he was not given salary in lieu of notice and no reasons given for the termination of the employment. He averred that prior to the termination of his employment, he was being owed salaries from July, 2012 until October, 2012 (4 months' salary). A copy of the internal memorandum dated 27th August, 2012 confirms the debts being owed by the company. That the end of the year bonus which was supposed to be his full salary without any deductions as at December, 2011 at N62,000.00 was not till date paid to him and his pension contribution for 8 months that is (N6,750 per month) deducted from his salary monthly were never remitted to the Pension Fund thus denied of earning returns on his pensions. The defendant unyielded to the claimant’s demand despite the two letters of formal demands by him dated 14th and 15th of November, 2012 and third letter of demand by his solicitor dated 2nd March, 2013. Claimant urged the court to grant all prayers sought in his complaint. The General Form of Complaint was served on the defendant on the 15th of August, 2013 as evinced on record. The defendants neither filed its pleadings nor was present and or represented in court, in spite of several hearing notices issued and served on it. It was on this premise that the Court pursuant to Order 19 Rule 2, the rules of this Court, ordered the claimant on whom rests the onus of proof to so do. The claimant opened his case, testified for himself at the trial of this case and tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits B1, B2, B3, B4, B5. At the close of the claimant's case, the claimant's witness was temporarily discharged to enable the defendant to cross examine him, on the 11th November 2013, a date fixed for the defendant to cross examine the claimant, the defendant was absent despite hearing notices issued. Trial was further adjourned to 16th January, 2014, yet neither the defendant nor its counsel was in Court. The Court had no choice than to foreclose the defendant from cross examining the claimant. On the 28th of January, 2014 a date fixed for defence, the defendant did not appear in Court or represented and there was no reasonable cause shown for its absence. The Court then closed the claimant's case. Adjourned for the defendant to open its defence, but as it is usual with the defendant, there was neither the defendant nor its representative in Court. The defendant was then foreclosed, and ordered the claimant to file his final written address. The claimant on the 13th of February, 2014 filed a Final Written Address wherein he framed an issue for the court’s determination: Whether the claimant has proven his claims before the court. Learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the defendant neither appeared nor defended the suit brought against it despite service of court processes and hearing notices on it. It is trite that unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence by the opposing party must be believed by the court unless such evidence is manifestly unbelievable. Therefore the claimant’s evidence must be accepted by the court. He cited in support the cases of GEGE V NANDE [2006] 10 NWLR (PT 988) 256 AT 290, PARA E; ADAMS V A.G FEDERATION [2006] 11 NWLR (PT 991) 341 AT 363-364, PARA F-G; NITEL V TUGBIYELE [2005] 3 NWLR (PT 912)334 AT 353, PARA A-B. Continuing, counsel submitted that failure of claimant to tender the letter of employment cannot vitiate his claims in this action because it is settled law that failure to tender the letter of employment which was frontloaded cannot vitiate a claim where the fact of the employment is not in dispute between the parties. In conclusion, he submitted that the claimant evidence must be believed in view of the counsel defendant’s failure to challenge or contradict same that the sole issue for determination is in the affirmative and urged the court to grant the order as prayed. Having perused the processes filed, the sworn deposition of the claimant and the written address filed by the claimant in support of his case, the only issue germane in this case is whether or not the claimant has proven his case to warrant granting the reliefs sought. It is the argument of the claimant that the defendant neither appeared nor defended the suit brought against it despite service of court processes and hearing notices on it. It is trite that unchallenged and uncontroverted evidence by the opposing party must be believed by the court unless such evidence is manifestly unbelievable. Therefore the claimant’s evidence must be accepted by the court. He cited in support the cases of GEGE V NANDE [2006] 10 NWLR (PT 988) 256 AT 290, PARA E; ADAMS V A.G FEDERATION [2006] 11 NWLR (PT 991) 341 AT 363-364, PARA F-G; NITEL V TUGBIYELE [2005] 3 NWLR (PT 912)334 AT 353, PARA A-B. I agree with the position of the law as asserted by the claimant. I reiterate that the law is settled that where evidence is led by a party to any proceedings as in the instant case and it is not challenged by the opposite party who had the opportunity to do so, it is always open to the court seised of the proceedings to accept the unchallenged evidence before it. See ODUNSI V BAMGBALA [1995] 1 NWLR (PT 374) 641; AMAYO V ERINMWINGBOVO [2006] 11 NWLR (PT 992), 699; OGUNYADE V OSHUNKEYE [2007]ALL FWLR(389), 1175 @ 1192-1193. This is so because in such situations the evidence before the trial court obviously goes one way with no other set of fact or evidence weighing against it. There is nothing in such situation to put on the other side of the proverbial imaginary scale or balance, as against the evidence given by or on behalf of the plaintiff. It has been stated above in this judgment that the defendant in this case failed or refused to appear in Court, represented by a counsel or filed a defence in this case. Several hearing notices on record served and acknowledged by different officers of the defendant evinced this. Be that as it may, the claimant is not absolved from the minimal evidential proof, which is to the effect that a Plaintiff cannot assume that he is entitled to automatic judgment just because the other party did not adduce evidence in a case. See LAWRENCE AZENABOR V BAYERO UNIVERSITY KANO [2011] 25 NNLR (PT.70) 45 @ 69, OGUNYADE V OSHUNKEYE Supra. What this means is that the Court will have to consider the process filed on record including documents as well as the sworn deposition of the claimant which even though uncontroverted and unchallenged, before arriving at a just decision. Now, the claims of the claimant is as endorsed on his complaint and captured above in this judgment. Summarily they are for salary arrears of N224,000.00 for the months July, 2012 to October 2012 at a monthly salary of N56,000.00, the sum of N62,000.00 as end of year bonus for 2011, the sum of N54,000.00 8 months arrears of contributory pension payments at the rate of N6,750.00 per month pre and post judgment interest of 25% and 15 % respectively. It is the case of the claimant that he was employed by the defendant vide a letter dated 4th January, 2010 which constitutes his terms of employment contract with the defendant, following his employment his salary was reviewed vide exhibit B1 i.e. the letter of salary review dated 14th January, 2011, wherein his salary was reviewed upward from N540,000.00 to N 720,000.00 per annum. According to the claimant his employment was orally terminated by the defendant's Managing Director one Engr Akeem Babatunde with immediate effect, without any prior notice or salary in lieu of notice on 31st October. Hence he filed this case to claim his benefits as captured above. It is evident on record vide exhibits B2, a letter issued by the defendant to all staff dated 27th August, 2012 wherein the defendant acknowledging the delay in payment of staff salary and pleaded with the staff including the claimant for their patient. It is not in doubt that the claimant was an employee of the defendant. It is equally not in doubt that he was on a salary of N720,000.00 per annum. It is not also in doubt that the claimant's employment was orally terminated on 31st October 2012 without notice or salary in lieu of notice. The claimant has also proven that the defendant owed him salary arrears. I so find and hold. Now, having held that the claimant has proven his case against the defendant the defendant having failed to defend this case in spite of the opportunities given to it to so do, is the claimant entitled to his claims. The answer is in the affirmative. Quickly before going on with this, I need to make a comment about the letter of offer of employment though frontloaded but was not tendered by the claimant. The law is trite that Court can look at documents filed on its record. See NWABUDO & ANOR V UGODU & ANOR [2011] LPELR, 9173. A careful scrutiny of the letter evinced that the claimant is the addressee of the letter on the letter headed paper of the defendant and dated the 4th of January, 2010. The claimant was offered employment as a Quantity Surveyor on a salary of N540,000.00 per annum. It is in the light of this that I considered and had recourse to the letter of offer of employment frontloaded by the claimant along with other documents filed. The claimant in his sworn deposition gave evidence as to his relationship with the defendant. This is also allowed by virtue of Section 128(3) of the Evidence Act, 2011. Which provides thus-- "(3) Oral evidence of the existence of a legal relationship is not excluded by the fact that it has been created by a document, when the facts to be proved is the existence of the relationship itself, and not the terms on which it was established or is carried on." The above settles the establishment of the relationship between the claimant and the defendant. Is the claimant entitle to reliefs sought? It is on record vide exhibit B1 that the claimant's salary was reviewed from N540,000.00 to N720,000.00 with effect from January 2011. Which means he was on a monthly salary of N60,000.00. It is the claimant's contention that the defendant is owing him salary arrears from July 2012 till October 31st when his employment was terminated. It is also pertinent to note that the defendant orally terminated claimant's employment with immediate effect without notice. The law is that before an employer can terminate the employment of it employee, it must give a requisite notice, which varies according to the terms of the contract of employment. However, it is also the law that where the contract of employment fails to make provision for a period of notice to be given by either of the parties to the agreement, the Court should consider what is reasonable in the circumstances. There is no document on record evidencing the notice period that the claimant is entitled to. In IMOLOAME V WAEC [1992] 9 NWLR (PT 265) 303, the Court held that where there is a contract of service, there is an implied term that the contract can only be terminated by given reasonable notice, and that what is reasonable is always dependent on the nature of contract and the status of the employee in the establishment. Thus, the higher the position held and the salary, the longer the notice required to determine his contract of employment. The claimant in the instance case was employed as a Quantity Surveyor on a salary of N60,000.00 per month. It therefore in the calm view of the Court that the reasonable notice required to be given to the claimant is one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice, which in this case is N60,000.00. It is thus found that the claimant is entitled to the sum of N60,000.00 as one month salary in lieu of notice. The claimant is also claiming his pension deductions, it is found that there is no document on record in prove of this claim and thus not entitle to same. Even if proven, pensions deductions are to be remitted to pension managers and not to the employee. The claimant's claim for bonus is not also tenable because there is nothing on record in prove of same. The claimant fails to tender any payslip or any document to evinced the deductions of pension from his salary, hence this claim dismissed. Finally, regarding the pre-judgment interest at the rate of 21% claimed by the claimant, it is pertinent to note that pre-judgment interest must not only be pleaded but must be strictly proved. AGBABIAKA V F.B.N PLC [2007] 6 NWLR (Pt.1029) pg.25. The claimant pleaded the claim for a pre judgment interest of 25%, he however did adduced evidence in proof of same. On the post judgment interest which is a discretionary power exercisable by the Court considering the facts of the case. It is in my humble view having considered the circumstances of this case that justice would be best served if an interest of 10% is awarded on the post judgment sum. It is in the light of all the above, that I make these Orders- 1. That the claimant's employment is wrongfully determined on the 31st October, 2012 without notice. 2. That the defendant should pay the claimant the sum of N60,000.00 as one month salary in lieu of notice. 3. The defendant should pay to the claimant the sum of N240,000.00 as salary arrears for the months of July to October 2012. 4. Claims 1 (b) and (c) fail for reasons given above. 4. The cost of this suit assessed at N50,000.00 5. All judgment sum shall be paid within 30 days of this judgment, failing which 10% interest per annum shall be paid on the judgment sum. Judgment is accordingly entered. Hon. Justice Oyebiola O. Oyewumi Judge.