Download PDF
The Claimant's cause for concern for which he instituted this action on the 11th December 2012 against the defendant seeking a verdict from this Court is that he was employed by the defendant for a contract period of two years commencing from 15th February, 2012 as the defendant’s General Manager in charge of the Nigerian office with an agreed Offshore salary of USD 5417 (877, 554) per month with a local Allowance of N275,000.00 per month. The claimant executed with the defendant an Appointment letter dated the 31st of January, 2012. In line with the payment terms per annum, the defendant paid the claimant the sum of N5,200,000.00(Five Million and Two Hundred Thousand Naira) the breakdown as follows: 1. House Rent for 1 year N 2.3Million (including house & genset services) 2. General value (20kv) N1.0 Million 3. Furniture and fittings N 1.9 Million Total N 5.2 Million He resumed with the defendant on the commencement date and served the defendant with utmost diligence but his employment according to him was wrongfully and illegally terminated by the defendant vide a letter dated 31st July, 2012. That he was made to return the sum of N2,666,666 (Two Million Six Hundred and Sixty- Six Thousand, Six Hundred and Sixty Six) out of the sum of N5.2Million being the sum paid in advance for his accommodation ( including house and genset services) since his employment has been determined by the defendant. The defendant refused to pay the him his Offshore Salary for June and July in the sum of N877,554 for each month and the sum of (N270,000) for July Local Allowance. He continued that by virtue of the letter of employment, either party is entitled to terminate the employment contract at any time by giving a notice of one month or payment in lieu. That he is entitled to 30days leave and monthly offshore salary during the leave period and since he has worked for the defendants for six months, he is entitled to 17.5days leave allowance in the sum of N511,758 out of N877,554 and the sum of N1,900 being the petty cash claim not paid to him by the defendant. He communicated his demands for claims through electronic mails to the defendant but it refused to accede to his claims then he engaged the services of his solicitor to formally demand the sum of money but defendant further refused hence he instructed his solicitors to prosecute the action, wherein he is seeking for the following- 1. Declaration that the defendant unlawfully and mischievously terminated the claimant’s employment. 2.The sum of N 1, 504,516.00 (One Million, Five Hundred and Four Thousand, Five Hundred and Sixteen Naira) being the outstanding amount of money due to the claimant from the defendant and interest thereon at the rate of 21% per annum from 31st of July, 2012 until judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum until final liquidation of the whole sum being claimed. 3. The sum of N15,000,000 (Fifteen Million Naira) being the general damages for loss of job opportunities by coming all the way from the United Kingdom to Nigeria at the behest of the defendant only to have his job terminated suddenly after six months as well as damages for various inconveniences, emotional shocks and pecuniary disadvantages to his family and dependants who are now starving due to sudden termination, and interest thereon at the rate of 21% per annum from 31st July, 2012 until judgment is given and thereafter at the rate of 15% per annum until final liquidation of the whole sum being claimed. Claimant pleads particulars of Special damages as follows: June Salary $ 5,417= N877,554 July Salary $5,417= N877,554 July Local Allowance $1,666= N 270,000 1 Month Salary in Lieu of Notice $ 5,417= N877,554 1 Month Local Allowance in Lieu of Notice $1,666= N 270,000 17.5 days leave incurred $3,159=N 511,758 Petty Cash claims not paid $12 = N1,900 Less advance against accommodation $13, 374=N2,666,666 Less Salary Advance taken $92 = N15,000.00 Total Balance Due $9,287= N1,504516. 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 and B4 It is the case of the defendant on the other hand that it is a start up registered company in Nigeria looking for an expatriate General Manager with substantial links in Nigeria to develop the defendant shipping business. The defendant was subsequently introduced to the claimant as a British citizen resident in Nigeria and with substantial contacts and connection in the Nigeria business sector. Subsequently, in January 2012 it entered into a business negotiation with the claimant to take up an employment as its General Manager to run it operation. The claimant warranted that he would be able to develop and generate business for the defendant and oversee the defendant’s operations hence an employment contract with an initial six months probation period was entered by the parties. The negotiation between the parties were based on a package that covered off-shore and local components of his salary, accommodation, car and driver and medical. The claimant disclosed that he had just moved into a three bedroom apartment on rent and had just bought a generating set and furniture. The rent of the apartment, generating set and furniture formed the basis of the serviced accommodation component of his remuneration and it was agreed between the parties that the defendant would reimburse the claimant for the value of the two- years house rent and would buy over the generating set furniture and fittings which would become the property of the defendant but available for use by the claimant. The parties agreed on a total value of N7,500,000.00 to be paid by the defendant to the claimant representing: a. House rent for two years N 4,600,000.00 (including house generator services) at N 2,300,000.00 per annum b. Value of 20k KVA Generating Set N 1, 000,000.00 c. Furniture and fittings N 1,900,000.00 N= 7,500,000.00 And the advance payment for the first year would comprise of: a. House rent for two years N 2,300,000.00 (including house generator services) at N 2,300,000.00 per annum b. Value of 20k KVA Generating Set N 1, 000,000.00 c. Furniture and fittings N 1,900,000.00 N= 5,200,000.00 As a result of the negotiation between the parties, the defendant offered the claimant employment as it General Manager on the terms of an Appointment Letter dated 31st January, 2012 which specifies a. A gross monthly salary comprising an off-shore component of USD 5417 per month and a local allowance of N275,000.00 per month payable at the end of every month. b. A probation period of six- months during which the defendant would review the claimant’s performance based on the business that he gets for the company in terms of sales leads; c. Accommodation in terms of the lease of the apartment where he was presently residing and the list of furniture and fittings including generating set to be bought by the defendant from him and offered to him for his use during his tenure working for the defendant; d. Leave of 30days at the end of 12 months; e. Car and driver; and f. Medical facilities The employment letter also stated that in the event of termination of employment within one year, the defendant would deduct one month salary to recover the initial employment cost and all expenses including rent, generating set, furniture and fittings would be paid back to the defendant on pro-rata basis. The terms of employment was unambiguously accepted by the claimant who endorsed copies of the employment letter and the sum of N 5,200,000.00 was paid by the defendant to the claimant to cover house rent for one year. During the probation period, the performance of the claimant was unsatisfactory as he failed to generate business for the defendant and engaged in conduct that were unbecoming and following the unwholesome report of the claimant by one Mr. Peter Ahamefule one of the Proton Security guards on duty in complex where the defendant’s office is located that the claimant in company of a male foreigner and two Nigerian ladies, on the night of 7th of April, 2012 at about 3.am came into the complex and insisted that the entrance door be opened so he could gain entry into the defendant’s office to retrieve some document. However, it turned out that the claimant and company all proceeded to engage in sexual acts in the corridor outside the defendant’s office suite. Consequently, the defendants on the 31st of July, 2012, wrote to the claimants terminating his employment. The claimant accepted the termination, stopped work and subsequently wrote to the defendant claiming the sum of N1,504,516.00 as balance due to him as being the outstanding emoluments of N3,686,320 less the total of N2, 681.666.00 owed by him (as advance against accommodation and salary advance taken), his salaries for the month of June, July, one month in lieu of notice and 17.5 days of leave and petty cash claims and airline ticket for himself and his wife and that he was also owed full package (house, car, telephone and laptop) for the one month period of notice. The defendants averred that by its calculations it owed the claimant the total sum of N2,008,440.00 comprising unpaid offshore salary for June, and local and offshore salary for July. Defendant also owes the claimant the sum of N4,075,000.00 comprising of the advance salary on 6 months pro-rated rent, re-imbursement of the cost of the generating set, furniture and fittings which had been bought by the defendant but was in use by the claimant and by the defendant’s calculations the claimant owed it the net sum of N2,066,560.00. The defendant denied owing the claimant one month salary in lieu of notice because by the terms of the employment letter the defendant was entitled to deduct one month’s salary (USD and Naira) in the event the defendant was forced to terminate the claimant’s employment within one year of joining the company and the claimant was not entitled to any leave allowance or airfare as he had not worked for up to a year at the time of termination of his employment. The defendant denied that the claimant was brought from United Kingdom to Nigeria that it is not indebted to the claimant in the net sum of N1,504,516.00 as special damages and interest thereon and the claimant’s employment was not wrongfully terminated as claimed by the claimant that claimant is not entitled to the sum of N15,000,000.00 as general damages and interest thereon. He is not entitled to the cost of prosecuting this action. Defendant averred that claimant has refused to pay his outstanding debt of N2, 066,560.00 owed to the defendant as at the 31st of July, 2012 after netting off his terminal pay. Defendant urged court to discountenance the claimant’s claim as is gold digging, frivolous and speculative and give judgment to the defendant. The Defendant at the trial of this case tendered in support of his case documents which were admitted and marked as Exhibits FN1, FN2, FN3, FN4. The claimant on the 4th of July, 2013 filed a reply to the statement of defence dated 17th of April, 2013 avers that the defendant never paid for the purchase of the generating set, furniture and fittings but merely negotiated the purchase of the generating set, furniture and fittings. That on being sacked he was instructed to hand over the entire defendant’s items in his custody which the claimant did. As a result he vacated the premises for fear of a possible vendetta by the defendant who has threatened to deal with him for daring to ask for his entitlement and stopped utilising the premises, the generating set, furniture and fittings. That he never engaged in any unbecoming activities and denies all allegations against him and averred that such defamatory activities meted against him by the defendant were orchestrated acts which the defendant vowed to unleash on him for daring to send e-mails demanding for his entitlements. The claimant also averred that he is not indebted to the defendant in the sum of N2, 066,560.00. The defendant on the 6th of February, 2014 filed its final address wherein it raised three issues for the court’s determination: a) Whether the claimant’s employment was unlawfully, wrong and/or mischievously terminated. b) Whether the claimant has proved that the he is entitled to an outstanding sum of N1,504,516.00 c) Whether the claimant is indebted to the defendant in the sum of N2, 066,560.00. d) Whether the claimant is entitled to damages. On issue one, learned counsel submitted that claimant and defendant entered into an employment contract evidenced by the claimant’s appointment letter dated 31st January, 2012. It is trite that parties are bound by the express terms and conditions so stipulated in the contract and in the instant case, the claimant’s employment contract included the following terms: “a). You will be on probation for six months. Company is new in Nigeria and depends on you to get business for the company through your contacts inside Nigeria. Company would support you for any help required outside Nigeria. As such during the probation period, company would review your performance based on the business that you get for the company in terms of sales leads either imports or exports. b) This contract is for a period of two years. Should either party decide to terminate this contract anytime before the expiry of the contract either of us will be required to give a notice of one month or payment in lieu of notice. In case you decide to leave the organization within one year of joining the company or by any reason company is forced to terminate your services, the company will be deducting one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial employment cost...”. He cited the case of OSUMAH V EDO BROADCASTING SERVICE & ANOR [2011] 23 NNLR (PT.65) 212 where the Court of Appeal held that: “Where the contract between the parties is clear and unequivocal, the Court in constructing the relationship of the parties, confine itself to the terms and contract of service between the parties” Learned counsel submitted that the claimant under cross examination claimed that he generated business for the defendant company but the defendant did not make money available to provide the services but when asked the value of the contract he stated that he doesn’t know. However, the defendant’s witness on the other hand testified in his evidence-in-chief that during the probation period, the performance of the claimant was unsatisfactory and he was unable to generate business for the defendant, engaged in unbecoming conduct while he was in the defendant’s employ leading to a report from the security guard company of the defendant’s office complex and as result of these conduct, defendant took a decision to terminate his employment and did so before the expiration of six month probation period. He cited in support the case of IHEZUKWU V UNIVERSITY OF JOS & 2 ORS [1990] 21 NSCC (PT III) 80,89; (1990) 4 NWLR (PT.146) 598.600 where the Supreme Court held thus: “The essence of a probationary period appointment is that the employer retains the right not to confirm the appointment until after a specified period, where the contract of employment provides that the appointment is subject, to a probationary period of a certain length of time and the employer may lawfully dismiss him before the expiry of that period”. Continuing, learned counsel submitted that the defendant was entitled to terminate the claimant’s appointment before the expiration of the probationary period that there is a difference between the rights of a confirmed officer and an officer on probation. The claimant cannot claim the rights of a confirmed officer. The right of an officer on probation is governed by the employment contract. He cited the case of IHEZUKWU V UNIVERSITY OF JOS & 2 ORS (supra) where the Supreme Court held: “It appears to me a startling proposition of law that during a probationary period an employer has no right to terminate the appointment of the employee notwithstanding the breach of the terms of his appointment or has done anything contrary to interest of his employer. The sole purpose of putting an employee on probation is to give the employer an assurance that the employee is a fit and proper person to be placed on permanent appointment. Probationary period is a period of observation by the employer. It therefore follows that once the condition laid down for the termination of appointment during the probationary period is satisfied or complied with an employee cannot justifiably complain” Counsel submitted that claimant was not entitled to payment in lieu of notice having spent less than six months in the defendants employ therefore the conditions laid down for the termination of the claimant’s appointment was complied with and the claimant cannot complain. He cited ADEBAYO V O.A.U T.H.C.M.B [2000] 9 NWLR (PT 673) 585, 606-607 where the court held: “A master can terminate the contract of employment with his servant at any time and for any reason or for no reason at all provided the terms of contract of service between are complied with.” Counsel submitted that it is trite that when an employee complains of wrongful termination of employment, the onus lies on him to prove not only the terms and conditions were breached by the employer. He cited the case of OKOEBOR V POLICE COUNCIL [2003] 40 WRN 93, 119 and submitted that claimant failed to show how wrongful his employment was terminated hence his employment was not unlawfully terminated but rather defendant complied with the conditions laid down for termination. On issue two, learned counsel contended that the claimant’s claims from the defendant are: June Salary $ 5,417= N877,554 July Salary $5,417= N877,554 July Local Allowance $1,666= N 270,000 1 Month Salary in Lieu of Notice $ 5,417= N877,554 1 Month Local Allowance in Lieu of Notice $1,666= N 270,000 17.5 days leave incurred $3,159=N 511,758 Petty Cash claims not paid $12 = N1,900 Continuing, he contended that the claimant himself deducted the advance for accommodation in the sum of N2,666,666 ($ 13,374) and salary advance of N15,000 ($9, 287) from the alleged outstanding monies due to him and arrived at a balance of N 1,504,576 (N9,287). He submitted that claimant’s claim of entitlement of one month salary and local allowance in lieu of notice is mistaken because by the contract of employment clearly stipulates that “In case you decide to leave the organization within one year of joining the company or by any reason company is forced to terminate your services, the company will be deducting one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial employment cost” The defendant was forced to terminate the claimant’s services within one year (six months) of joining the defendants hence the defendant was entitled to deduct one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial employment cost and coupled with the fact that he was still on probation, he was not therefore entitled to one month’s salary or local allowance in lieu of notice. Counsel submitted it was not established that the defendant in computing the claimant’s entitlement exercised its right to deduct one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial cost of employing the claimant and the claimant tendered no exhibit to prove that it made a return of N2,666,666.00 as it claimed that a further consideration Exhibit B1shows that the claimant was entitled to leave of thirty 30days at the end of 12 months. However there are uncontroverted evidence to show that the claimant never spent up to 12months in the defendant’s company therefore no basis for the 17.5 days leave allowance. The claimant failed to adduce evidence as to how it arrived at the sum of N1,900 the claim of the unpaid petty cash and also failed to prove that he is entitled to payment of the sum of N1,504,516.00 from the defendant. On issue three, learned counsel submitted that the claimant is indebted to the defendant in the sum of N 2,066,560.00 being the outstanding net indebtedness of the claimant following the termination of his employment on the 31st of July, 2012. He stated that defendant agreed to pay the cost of house rent for one year and the full value of the generating set and furniture and fittings in advance at the commencement of the claimant’s employment. The house rent for the second year would be paid in advance after one year. The defendant subsequently paid the claimant the sum of N 5,200,000.00 representing: a) House rent for one year- N2,300,000.00 b) Value of 20 KVA Generating set- N1,000.000.00 c) Payment for Furniture and Fittings- N1,900,000.00 The claimant admitted to being paid the sum of N 5,200,000.00 to cover the expenses of the house rent, furniture and fittings but however alleged that the said sum paid for the house rent, furniture and fittings were for a lease of the said items. Learned counsel submitted that by Exhibit B1, which states that: “Please refer email exchange dated 26th January, 2012 wherein M/s Sea Sands Shipping and Yourself have agreed/finalised on the terms of Lease of apartment where you are presently residing, and the list of furniture/fittings including generating set to be brought by M/s sea sand from you and will be offered to you for your use during your... working for the company...” That upon termination of the claimant employment, the defendant is entitled to recover all expenses incurred by the defendant for the claimant including house rent, generating set and furniture and fittings on pro-rata basis. Counsel also submitted that defendant reimbursed the claimant with the sum of N2,300,000.00 for a year rent in the apartment he was occupying in which claimant stayed only six months in the defendant’s employ hence the defendant is entitled to recover the sum of N1,150,000.00 for the remaining six months being the remainder of the one year rent paid for but he did not occupy. Also the defendant is entitled to be paid back the sum of N 1,900,000.00 and N1,000,000.00 respectively being the value of the furniture and generating set as claimant admitted that they are still in his possession. He went on to state that claimant also took a salary in advance of N25,000.00 which the defendant is entitled to recover. From the defendant’s calculation the claimant’s indebtedness to the defendant is N4,075,000.00 (Four Million, Seventy five Thousand Naira only). Notwithstanding, the fact that the defendant is entitled to deduct one (1) month’s salary of the claimant to cover the initial employment cost, the defendant conceded to the claimant being entitled to payment of : June Salary $ 5,417= N877,554 July Salary $5,417= N877,554 July Local Allowance $1,666= N 275,000 It is further submitted that if the claimant is indebted to the defendant in the sum of N4,075,000.00 and his entitlement with the defendant is in the sum of N2,008,440 hence claimant is still indebted to defendant in the net sum of N2,066,560.00 and is liable to pay the sum to the defendant. On issue four, learned counsel submitted that claimant claims the sum of N15,000,000 for general damages for various inconveniences, loss of job opportunities by coming all the way from the United Kingdom to Nigeria at the behest of the defendant only to have his job terminated six months after and this caused emotional shock to his family and dependant. That claimant has not been able to prove his employment was wrongfully terminated, he never put facts before the court to show that he suffered any inconvenience or damages as a result of his employment being terminated. That he averred in his statement on oath to have been brought to Nigeria from United Kingdom on the behest of the defendant but under cross examination, admitted that he has been living in Nigeria for about 20years before the defendant employed him. In conclusion learned counsel urged the court to dismiss the claimant’s claims and give judgment in favour of the defendant. The claimant on the 17th of March, 2014 filed his final written address wherein five issues were framed for the court’s determination as follows: 1. Whether having regard to the facts of this case and the totality of evidence before this court, the claimant’s employment was lawfully, wrongfully and mischievously terminated by the defendant. 2. Whether having regard to the totality of evidence before the court, the defendant bought the Generating set, Furniture and Fittings in the apartment rented for the claimant. 3. Whether if the answer to issue 2 above is in the negative, the defendant could reclaim the sum of N2,066,560 or at all from the claimant, as the outstanding indebtedness to the defendant as at 31st July, 2012. 4. Whether the claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,504,516.00 as outstanding money due to him from the defendant. 5. Whether the claimant is entitled to damages. On issue one, learned counsel submitted that the claimant was employed by the defendant in February, 2012 as a General Manager, he conscientiously used his links and connection to secure business for the defendant but the defendant unilaterally terminated the employment of the claimant on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance and unbecoming conduct. The DW under cross examination admitted that there was no form of evaluation, appraisal or assessment of the claimant’s work to justify its assertion of unsatisfactory performance, no query or warnings served on him in that regard. Counsel contended that contrary to the assertion of the defendant that claimant could not generate business and that by the nature of the defendant’s business, funding is critical and the operations of the defendant solely depend on the parent company abroad for funding. Counsel referred to Exhibit B1 which reads “Company would support you for any help required outside Nigeria”. CW stated under cross examination which neither challenged nor controverted that he used his goodwill to import 25 containers of goods into Nigeria and requested for fund to clear same but the defendant failed to fund the clearance of the same goods hence frustrating his efforts at generating business. Counsel submitted that the case of IHEZUKWU V UNIVERSITY OF JOS & 2 ORS cited by the defence counsel is in contradistinction with this suit as this suit is not one of dismissal. Counsel submitted that Exhibit FN2 which the defendant claimed formed part of the reason for terminating the employment of the claimant amounts to hearsay because the author of the document is neither a staff of the defendant, a party to this matter nor was he called to give evidence based on what he allegedly witnessed that by SECTION 37 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 hearsay means: “a) Oral or written statement made otherwise than by a witness in a proceedings or b) Contained or recorded in a book, document or any record whatsoever, proof of which is not admissible under provisions of the Act, which is tendered in evidence for the purpose of proving the truth of the matter stated in it ” Continuing, he contended that Exhibit FN2 is not an authentic document since there is no evidence that it originated from Proton Security Services Limited and it is a mere letter as against the words “Investigative Report” used. He cited the case of BRITISH AIRWAYS V MAKANJUOLA [1993] 8 NWLR (PT 311), 276 at 286 where the Court of Appeal held: “In interpreting a document, one must not import into the document what is not in the document” Therefore, Exhibit FN2 should not be accorded any weight and should be discountenanced as same is mere hearsay and inadmissible under SECTION 38 of the EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 which provides that: “Hearsay evidence is not admissible except as provided in this part or by or under any provision of this or any Act”. On issue two, counsel submitted that the defendant merely negotiated the purchase of the generating set, furniture and fittings but there was never a consensus ad idem, it never executed any agreement or agreed on such separate agreement it ended up not buying them but merely paid for services and maintenance of the items during the period of the claimant’s stay in the apartment. Counsel refer to paragraphs 2 and 3 of Exhibit A (dated 04/07/13): “The defendant never paid for the purchase of the genset, furniture and fittings and therefore did not acquire them... the defendant merely negotiated the purchase... ” Also by Exhibit B1 the it stated that “...list of furniture and fixtures including genset to be bought by M/s Sea Sands Shipping from Mr.Stuart...” Counsel submitted that the clause “to be bought” must not be incorporated as meaning “bought”. Counsel went on to state that the defendant claimed that it bought the generator and furniture/fittings but cannot produce an evidence of purchase of these items nor exhibit any sale agreement by which it bought the item from the claimant and admitted under cross examination if there was any separate agreement as read in Exhibit B1, he answered in the negative. Learned counsel submitted Exhibit FN is merely the alleged advanced payment to the claimant for the first year that DW under cross examination was referred to Exhibit FN where he asserted that the claimant valuation of rent for the apartment, and the cost of the genset and furniture formed the basis of the services accommodation component of his remuneration package but when further asked the exact figure of valuation, he stated that he could not recall. It is trite that when a witness’ testimony is riddled with inconsistencies, the court is entitled to reject it. Even the appellate court cannot interfere with the findings he cited AGBI V OGBE [2009] 11 NWLR (PT.990) PAGE 65, AT 114-116. Counsel cited CMERRON AIRLINE V OTUTUIZU [2011] 1-2 SC (PT III), PAGE 200 AT 236 where the Supreme Court held that: “Averments in pleadings are facts as perceived by the party relying on them. There must be oral or documentary evidence to show that the facts pleaded are true. Consequently, pleadings without evidence to support it are worthless” Counsel submitted that the defendant has not been able to prove or established that it had purchased the generator and furniture and fixtures in the premises/apartment having asserted that it had purchased the items from the claimant. He cited SECTION 136 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, 2011 provides that: “the burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the court to believe in its existence unless it is provided by any law that proof of that fact, shall lie on any particular person but the burden may in the courses of a case be shifted from one side to another” Therefore, counsel urged the court to hold that the defendant did not buy generator and furniture and fixtures from the claimant. It is submitted as regards issue three, that the claimant cannot be liable to the defendant in the sum of N2,066,560.00 having established that the defendant did not buy the items from the claimant, that claimant vacated the premises after termination of his employment as he was afraid of possible vendetta going by the threats he received and secured another job where he was given another official accommodation. The CW under cross examination which was not controverted by the defendant stated that “I have moved out of the apartment I was when the defendant employed me. The Generating set, furniture and fittings were removed with me because nobody had paid for them”. Counsel submitted therefore that claimant is not liable to the defendant in the sum of N2,066,560.00 in any way. On issue four, learned counsel posited that claimant work for six months from February to 31st July, 2012 (a period of six months) in other words he had completed the probation of six months. That by Exhibit B1“In case you decide to leave the organization within one year of joining the company or by any reason company is forced to terminate your services, the company will be deducting one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial employment cost”. Counsel submitted that the claimant never resigned from the employment of the defendant and nothing forced the defendant to terminate the claimant’s employment since there is no compelling evidence showing so. No query nor warnings was served on him and no report indicting the claimant of any untoward activities hence there is no legal basis whatsoever why the defendant should deduct one month’s salary to recover the initial employment cost. Continuing, counsel submitted that by Exhibit B1 “you will be paid offshore salary of USD 5417 per month with a local allowance of N275,000.00 per month, payable at the end of every month” The defendant admitted owing the claimant June and July 2012 salary the by paragraph 35 of the statement of defence it averred that “the defendant avers that by its calculations, it owed the claimant the total sum of N2,008,440.00 comprising unpaid offshore salary for June and local and offshore salary for July”. He submitted that claimant is entitled to salary in lieu because claimant’s employment was terminated without notice contrary to the clear provision of Exhibit B1 which provides that “this contract is for a period of two years should either party decide to terminate this contract anytime before the expiry of the contract, either of us will be required to give a notice of one month or payment in lieu of notice”. He submitted that from the totality of evidence, the claimant is entitled to the sum of N1,504,516.00 as outstanding money due to him from the defendant and urged the court to hold so accordingly. Finally, on issue five counsel submitted that claimant is seeking the sum of N15, 000,000.0 as general damages for loss of jobs opportunities, inconveniences, emotional shocks, pecuniary disadvantages etc. He submitted that it is the law that where a breach of contract results in physical inconveniences and discomfort, damages will be recoverable by the plaintiff for such breach of contract. He cited the case of BRITISH AIRWAYS VS ATOYEBI [2010] 14 NWLR (PT. 1214) 561 AT 606. Counsel submitted that Exhibit FN3 claimant was mandated to hand over all company’s items same day he was sacked. He was left stranded. He passed through emotional and physical inconveniences to get home, more so that he was not paid any sum of money as severance benefit. The payment he was entitled to was not given by the defendant. Counsel finally submitted that claimant has been able to prove that he is entitled to damages as claimed. Counsel urged the court to grant the claimant’s prayers and dismiss the defendant‘s counter claim and give judgment in favour of the claimant. The defendant on the 24th March, 2014 filed a reply on points of law stating that the claimant in his final address has alluded to facts which were not pleaded in either the claimant’s or the defendant’s pleadings referring to claimant's assertion on the issue of about 45 containers which the claimant claimed came into the country through his efforts but the defendant made no fund available. Claimant never deemed it fit to plead those facts in response to the defendant’s allegation that the claimant was unable or refused to generate business for the defendant. The evidence under cross examination is clearly an afterthought. It is trite that evidence which is not pleaded goes to no issue. He cited the case of BELLO V THE GOVERNOR OF KOGI STATE [1997] 9NWLR (PT.521)496, 522 where the court held that: “I agree with learned counsel for the appellant that an evidence which is not pleaded goes to no issue on the authority of ATANDA V AJANI [1989] 3 NWLR (PT.111) 511,514” He submitted that such evidence the claimant seeks to rely on in support of his case, which he has not pleaded goes to no issue and same should be disregarded by the Honourable Court. Also claimant’s counsel made submissions in his address that were neither pleaded nor adduce evidence in support where he stated that by nature of defendant’s business, funding is critical that the operations of the defendant solely depends on funding from the parent’s company abroad and efforts at generating businesses were frustrated by the defendant. Counsel went on to state that a counsel’s address no matter how brilliant he is, is not a substitute for and cannot take the functions of pleadings. He cited the case of AKIBU V RACE AUTO SUPPLY CO [2000] 14 NWLR (PT.686) 190, 207; ARO V ARO [2000] 3 NWLR (PT.649) 443, 457. Counsel posited that the claimant in his address argued that the defendant failed to prove that it purchased the generator set, furniture/fixture from the claimant. But admitted in his statement of claim that he was paid the sum of N1.9 Million as value for the of the furniture and fittings and N1 Million as value of the generating set hence fact admitted needs no further proof as provided for in SECTION 123 of the Evidence Act, 2011. Learned counsel submitted that claimant’s evidence is at variance with pleadings that under cross examination claimant admitted that ‘I have moved out of the apartment I was when the defendant employed me. The generating set, furniture and fittings were removed with me because nobody paid for them’ and said testimony was not controverted by the defendant. That the claimant in his evidence –in-chief testified that he was paid N5,200,000.00 in advance by the defendant which comprised of N2.3 Million for rent, N1.9 Million for furniture and fittings and N1 Million for generating set. However, under cross examination claimant admitted that the sum of N5,200,000.00 was for a rent and part payment of generating set, furniture and fittings. Also in reply to statement of defence claimant avers that he stopped utilizing furniture and fittings and none of the defendant’s properties was in his custody any longer but admitted under cross examination that they were his properties. Counsel submitted that it is trite law that where evidence adduced at the trial is at variance with the pleadings the fact is deemed not established. He cited ADIMORA V AJUFO [1988] 1 NWLR (PT.80) 1. Learned counsel submitted that the cases of BRITISH AIRWAYS VS ATOYEBI (supra) and ILUONA V CHIEKWE [1991] 2 NWLR (PT.173) 316 are in contradistinction with the present suit. Therefore, no breach of contract has been proven and no credible evidence whatsoever of physical inconvenience and discomfort caused by the alleged breached has been proven by the claimant. Defendant finally urged court to grant his counter claims and dismiss the claims of the claimant. I have before the Court the originating processes of the claimant, his evidence in chief and documents he relied on in proof of his claim, also before me are the statement of defence and counter claim, defence witness statement and documents it relied on in its defence and counter claim. I have equally heard the oral testimonies of both witnesses under cross examination and have observed their respective demeanours. Both parties addressed the main issues in this case in their final written addresses as captured in issues distilled by each of them. The main issue begging for an answer in this case is whether or not the claimant's employment was wrongfully terminated and thereby entitle to claims sought. The law is long settled that he who asserts must proof the existence of the facts. It is the contention of the claimant as could be seen above that his employment was unlawfully terminated and was not paid one month salary in lieu of notice. In considering the merit of the case, it is imperative to state at the outset that both parties are in ad idem that exhibit B1and FN1 i.e. the original and photocopy of the claimant's employment letter forms the bedrock of their relationship, hereafter the employment letter would be referred to as exhibit B1. It is thus important to consider the salient aspect of the contract of employment relevant in this regard as would be seen later in this judgment . Parties are also on consensus as regards the payment of N5.2M as one year claimant's house rent, generating set value put at N1M and N1.9M as furniture and fittings. It is paramount at this stage to resolve the issue of termination of claimant's employment vide exhibit FN3 by the defendant on 31st July 2012 vis a vis exhibit FN2 ( A letter written by one Peter Ahamafule of Proten Security). The reason given in exhibit FN3 is that his services are no longer required. However, in paragraph 24 of DW's evidence in chief he averred that the claimant's performance was most unsatisfactory and that the claimant was unable to generate business for the defendant, rather he engaged in unbecoming conduct, to wit sexual acts in the corridor of the defendant's office suit as was told by one Ahamefule Peter. The law is long settled that parties are bound by their agreement. It is also the law that an employer can terminate the employment of its employee without any reason at all, but where it gives a reason it must proof same. By the terms of exhibit B1, the claimant's employment would be terminated first by either parties after given one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice, or if termination is within 6 months of employment, the defendant shall deduct one month salary from the claimant's salary. For purposes of clarity, the said provision is hereunder highlighted thus- “In case you decide to leave the organization within one year of joining the company or by any reason company is forced to terminate your services, the company will be deducting one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial employment cost”. Going by the above provision of exhibit B1, which provision is unequivocal as alluded to by the defendant. If the claimant leaves the company within one year of joining the company or if the company is forced to terminate his employment within one year by any reason, the defendant will deduct one month salary of the claimant to recover the initial employment cost. In other words irrespective of whether the claimant was asked to leave or he chooses to leave the defendant would still deduct one month salary. It is interesting to note that the defendant in terminating the claimant's employment gave reasons as stated supra and in prove of same, the defendant tendered exhibit FN2, i.e. a letter purportedly written by one Peter Ahamefule a Proten security guard, the said Peter as contended by the claimant was not called as a witness and thus urged the Court to discountenance with the said exhibit as being fake. It is noteworthy that the defendant did not in any way impeach this contention, not even in its reply on point of law. The law as is long settled is that facts not challenged or controverted are deemed true and reliable. See OGUNYADE V OSHUNKEYE [2007] ALL FWLR (PT 389, P 1179 @ 1192. I have gone through exhibit FN2 i.e. the letter purportedly written by Peter Ahamefule, it is apparent on the face of it that there are inscriptions on the said letter likened to a paper handled by a kindergarten child to master writing lesson, as could be gleaned on the top right and left hand side of the paper, coupled with the fact that the author of the letter was not before the Court to give evidence in corroboration of its content, exhibit FN2 has no probative value and thus regarded as a mere piece of paper, it is hereby discountenance with and expunged from the record of this Court. Next of importance is the reason given by the defendant for terminating the claimant's employment that his performance was most unsatisfactory. The defence did not give specific particulars of its assertion, this sweeping statement cannot be enough to satisfy the Court as cogent and credible to have forced it to terminate the claimant's employment. The defendant argued that because the claimant performance was the most unsatisfactory, they are entitle to give effect to the provision in exhibit B1. The question in need of answer here, is whether they are right. The provision supra is unambiguous and the sanctity of exhibit B1 i.e the contract would only be enforced if questions in respect thereof are resolved by giving effect to those terms enshrined in same. The relevant portion of exhibit B1 as regards termination within one year is as highlighted supra, and the operative words are ''or by any reason the company is forced to terminate your employment''. The claimant stated under cross examination that he brought in business of 45 containers from Jordan but the defendant did not provide funds to enable him provide the services he was engaged to provide, although the defence had asked the Court to discountenance this statement as facts not pleaded, the interest of justice demands that all facts placed before the Court should be evaluated. The claimant on his own part contended that failure of the defendant to provide the requisite funds is in disregard to the tenor of exhibit B1 wherein the defendant covenanted to support him for any help require outside Nigeria. (emphasis is mine). Assuming the claimant's assertion under cross examination that he brought in business but the defendant failed to support him financially is discountenanced, DW admitted under cross examination that they did not do any formal performance appraisal of the claimant to ascertain his performance as required by exhibit B1, how then did the defendant arrived at its reason that the performance of the claimant was the most unsatisfactory? Would it be right for the Court to hold that this reason or the purported unsubstantiated sexual act of the claimant is enough and sufficient reasons that 'forced' the defendant to terminate the claimant's employment within 6 months of his employment?. I answer in the negative. This Court had noted the disproportionate disparity in the bargaining power between the employer and employee. In MR KURT STERINSON V ENGINEERING MARKET TELECOMMUNICATION SERVICES LTD[2012]27 N.L.L.R (PT 78) 374 ; which case is in all fours with this instance case and was reiterated in the unreported case of PATRICK AIMIOSIOR V IGI PLC; Suit No.NIC/LA/184/2012 and delivered on 3rd June 2014; the Court stated thus- ''It must be noted that the termination of the claimant's employment and the drafting of the release and discharge certificate were all at the behest of the defendant. This means that the claimant was presented with these two documents as a fait acompli. The balance of bargaining power in the relationship between an employer and an employee tilts in favour of the employer, which is what was exhibited in the instant case. The defendant did not sit with the claimant to draft the release and discharge certificate...'' Whilst placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the above case, it is in considered view of this Court that the clause in the term of the contract captured supra on termination was couched in such a way that either way the defendant will have the best of the two sides of the coin. Meaning the employer is a winner irrespective of which of the goal posts the goal is scored. This is inequality per excellence and that is not what justice stands for. The overall circumstances of this case suggest that even if no reason was given in the letter of termination, claimant's employment was deliberately terminated in order to disentitle him to one month salary in lieu of notice. I wish to borrow the words used in the SEVERINSON;S CASE that to discountenance moral questions in such circumstance will smack of insensitivity to the plight of hapless employees on the part of the employer which will be most unconscionable. Pp 458-459, paras G-C. To yield to such a term/clause is likened to adopting the cruel atrocious nature of Shylock in the Shakespeare's text '' Merchant of Venice'' who want his pound of flesh at all cost. It is thus in the respected view of this Court that the clause highlighted supra as regards termination of employment within one year, specifically -- ''...or by any reason company is forced to terminate your services, the company will be deducting one month’ salary (USD and Naira) to recover the initial employment cost”. Is an unfair term/clause of the contract in exhibit B1 and consequently discountenanced with. It is also found that the claimant employment was wrongfully terminated based on same. To find and hold otherwise is to succumb to the allurement of technicalities.( Using the words of Achike JCA in VULCAN GASES LTD V AKINLOLA[1993] 2 NWLR(PT 274) 155). As regards the claims of the claimant, he is seeking for reliefs in the sum of N1,504,516.00, comprises of his June and July salary, July local allowance, one month salary in lieu of notice, a month local allowance in lieu of notice, 17.5 days leave incurred, Petty cash claims unpaid. The defendant conceded to the claimant being entitled to payment of : June Salary $ 5,417= N877,554 July Salary $5,417= N877,554 July Local Allowance $1,666= N 275,000 It is the law that facts admitted need no further proof, it is accordingly found that the claimant is entitle to be paid the above admitted sum all totalling N2,030,108.00 less N19,000 advanced to the claimant by the defendant. It is the further claim of the claimant that he was made to refund the sum of N2,666,666 as accommodation and generating set services on the termination of his employment. It is on record as averred and agreed by both parties that the defendant paid the claimant the sum of N5.2M at the commencement of their contract relationship to cover one year accommodation, generating set and furniture; however, claimant's contention is that he was asked to make a refund as stated supra, that has not been denied by the defendant. Now, what is the entitlement of the claimant?. Having held that the second clause under employment contract in exhibit B1 is unfair term and discountenanced, the Court will adopt and apply the term that provides that either party who decides to terminate the contract will give one month notice or one month salary in lieu of notice to the other party and since it is the defendant that terminated the claimant's employment, he is therefore entitle to payment of one month salary in lieu of notice, i.e. the sum of N877,554.00 and one month local allowance of N275,000. With regards to the claim for 17.5 days leave allowance, the terms of the contract is clear on this, it provides that the claimant shall be entitle to one month leave after one year of employment. It is apparent that the claimant only spent 6 months in the employ of the defendant, he is thus not entitle to any leave. Exhibit B1 is specific on this and same as held earlier in this judgment, is binding on the parties, consequently, the claim for leave allowance fails; same is the claim for petty cash of N1,900.00 claimant did not prove this claim, there is nothing on record to authenticate that, accordingly, both claims fail and are dismissed. As regards the defendant's counter claim for accommodation, furniture and fittings, it is important to reproduce the provision of exhibit B1 on the subject as follows- “Please refer email exchange dated 26th January, 2012 wherein M/s Sea Sands Shipping and Yourself have agreed/finalised on the terms of Lease of apartment where you are presently residing, and the list of furniture/fittings including generating set to be brought by M/s sea sand from you and will be offered to you for your use during your tenure working for the company. Separate agreements to this effect will be prepared and will form part of this contract'' This provision will aid the Court in deciding on the defendant's counter claim which is the sum of N4,075,000.00 less the admitted sum of N2,030,108.00, hence its claiming N2,066,560.00 from the claimant as one month salary in lieu of notice, 6 months accommodation, amount paid for generating set and furniture. With regard to the rent, generating set and furniture it is obvious in exhibit B1 captured above that the defendant is to buy the furniture and generating set from the claimant and for the claimant's use during his tenure in the company. Separate agreement is to be prepared in respect of same, it is however, pertinent to note that there is no such agreement made pursuant to the above clause. The claimant averred that he was paid N1,900,000.00 for furniture and fitting while the sum of N1,000,000.00 was collected for generating set, now going by the clause on accommodation in exhibit B1, it is pertinent to answer this question, who is entitle to the generating set and furniture?. It is the contention of the defendant that it paid for them and thus the defendant is claiming the sum paid to the claimant, while the claimant's position is that going by the terms of the agreement the generating set and furniture are part of his perquisites of office during his tenure and that in actual fact he bought them and what was paid to him was for the servicing the items and nothing more. It is clear from the tenor of the terms of exhibit B1 that the generating set and furniture would be bought from the claimant for his use. It is not on record anywhere in this suit that they were actually and in fact bought by the defendant, for which an agreement would have been drawn up and executed by both parties, no such agreement was effected. The defendant's counsel deliberately left out some portions of the clause highlighted above, in relation to the agreement part as could be seen in his written address summarised earlier in this judgment for obvious reasons. It is noteworthy that the defendant in addition to exhibit B1also sent an email dated 26th January, 2012 to the claimant that it shall prepare a sales agreement for them to execute when he agrees to their offer, but that was never done. The last sentence of the email attached to and forms part of exhibit B1 throws more light to the intention of the defendant in that regard as captured hereafter thus- ''... We shall also send you our offer letter on Sun 29th jan'12 with terms'' what this presupposes is that both parties will enter into a contract with regard to the generating set, accommodation and furniture. The refusal or failure of the defendant to make any offer, for which the claimant would have made a counter offer or acceptance was never done and thus there was no agreement in that regard as stated above. The implication of this is that the status quo was maintained as regards those items, i.e. the claimant being the owner of the items ab initio retains the ownership of same. I so find. Consequently, the defendant's counter claims fail in its entirety and thus dismissed. In summary, and for purposes of clarity, the claimant's claim succeeds as represented in the following terms-- 1. It is hereby declared that the second arm of the terms/clause on termination of the contract agreement is unfair term of the contract of service of the claimant and thus discountenanced. 2. It will be and also declared that the termination of the claimant's employment was wrongful and therefore, he is entitle to damages of one month salary in lieu of notice (USD and NAIRA) 3. The defendant is ordered and shall pay the claimant the sum of N1,152,554.00 as one month salary in lieu of notice(USD and NAIRA). 4. The defendant is ordered and shall pay the sum of N2,011,108.00 admitted by it to the claimant as June, July and local salary less N15,000.00 advanced to the claimant. 5. The claim for special damages fails and is hereby dismissed. 6. All the sum should be paid in 30days of this judgment. No order as to costs. Judgment is accordingly entered. Hon. Justice Oyewumi Oyebiola O. Judge