Download PDF
BEFORE THEIR LORDSHIPS Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip - Presiding Judge Hon. Justice V. N. Okobi - Judge Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere - Judge Hon. Justice O. A. Obaseki-Osaghae - Judge Hon. Justice J. T. Agbadu-Fishim - Judge DATE: 13TH April, 2010 SUIT NO. NIC/51/2008 BETWEEN Mr. Ugwumba Obasi - Claimant And 1. Shifa Plastic Ind. Co. (Nig.) Ltd 2. Mr. Michael Adesua 3. Mr. Thomas Guo Yongyue 4. Mr. Jegede Adeolu - Respondents REPRESENTATION Mohammed A. Adamu Esq. and Emmanuel Essien Esq., for the claimant O. M. Aborisade Esq. and G. I. Okoli, for the respondents JUDGMENT The claimant commenced this action by complaint in which he claims the following against the respondents :- 1. Special damages for the sum of Nl,000,000.00 broken down as follows: a. The sum of N77,000.00 being the balance of salary short payment from October 2007 to August 2008. Instead of N20,000.00 monthly only N13,000.00 was paid monthly. b. The sum of N223,000.00 for holding up of such amount for 11 months, the interest accrued thereon. c. The sum of N700,000.00 for the extra efforts put in building and constructing the 1st defendant factory as a pioneer worker of the 1st respondent. 2. The sum of Nl,000,000.00 as General Damages for the breach of employment contract jointly and severally. 3. The cost of this litigation is put at N500,000.00 AND any other orders to be made by this Court in the circumstances. Also filed along with the complaint are the claimant's statement of claims, list of exhibits relied upon, list of witnesses to be called and the exhibits attached which include the claimant's letters of appointment, confirmation of appointment, salary adjustment, query and termination of appointment. The claimant averred in his statement of claims that the 1st respondent is a limited liability company in Nigeria, the 2nd respondent is its Assistant Manager; the 3rd respondent is its General Manager while the 4th respondent is its Personnel Manager. He stated that he was employed in the 1st respondent's company effective from 1st January 2007 and his salary was adjusted upward to N20,000 monthly in August same year which he enjoyed for only two months - August and September 2007. That as a union executive, in the company, he always advised the respondents against importation of illegal and contraband items like rice and face caps from China which it deposited all over the country but the company will not bulge. He averred that the respondents breached the terms of his employment contract with them for eleven months by monthly short paying him his salary by N7,000.00. And when his employment was to be terminated, he was not given the required notice. He stated that before the termination, the respondent gave him a query which was inadequate because the time within which he was to respond to the query was 12 hours instead of 24 hours known to law and to the Establishment. The claimant averred further that because he was a union executive in the 1st respondent, he was being victimized. That the 1st respondent always disagreed with its workers and that was why at a time they had a two months' strike. And on the 2nd July, 2008 the management of the 1st respondent and its workers agreed to end the strike and that there will be no victimization as a result of the strike. To the claimant, all the queries he received in the company was as a result of his victimization and that eventually he was wrongfully dismissed and terminated on the 25th August 2008. He averred that the 1st respondent failed to hold annual meetings nor make returns to Corporate Affairs Commission contrary to Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 and that the 1st respondent's premises has been turned to a mini arms depot even though unlicensed for gun. He again informed the court that there is no signboard or changing room for workers in the 1st respondent factory. He urged the court to declare his termination illegal, null and void. In the respondents' statement of defence, it is averred that the claimant was employed as a store keeper in their company who was entitled to overtime wherever that is applicable. Their position is that the N20,000.00 allegedly paid the claimant in August and September 2008 were inclusive of overtime. They denied the use of or being in possession of guns. That when the claimant was redeployed to the grinding section of the 1st respondent, he refused to resume duty for three days, hence he was issued queries. The respondents further averred that there was no agreement between them and the claimant to build a factory for them and in consideration be paid N700,000.00. In addition they stated that there was no agreement between the parties that the respondents should pay N223,000.00 interest or pay N77,000 to the claimant. They urged the court to dismiss this action because it discloses no cause of action against the 2nd and 3rd respondents and because the entire suit is frivolous, baseless, gold-digging, lacking in merit and an abuse of court's process. The respondents jointly and severally counter-claimed the sum of N10 million against the claimant as general damages for his malicious, mischievous and criminal falsehood against them because he maligned the good reputation of the company and ridiculed it by insinuating that the company illegally deals in arms and contraband goods. The respondents attached twelve documents to their statement of defence. These include confirmation letter, personal handbook (i.e. their rules and regulations, conditions of service), letters of queries, warnings, transfers and annual leave, application for loan and payment slip. In his reply to the respondents' statement of defence, the claimant averred inter alia that the N20,000.00 monthly salary he took in August and September 2007 was as a result of his salary increase via letter of 28th August, 2007 on his salary adjustment; and not because of overtime. He denied receiving any handbook from the respondents while in their employment and that the various transfers he got in the company was out of malice, mischief and victimization because he was a branch union executive. The claimant, therefore, counter-claimed to the respondents' counter-claim the sum of N100,000.00 for not filing the required processes at the court's Registry, for issuing inappropriate query to him and by not giving him the required time to respond to the query. Other reasons given for this claim is the termination of his appointment and for denying that he was laid off thereby reducing him to a casual worker. At the hearing of this case the claimant gave evidence for himself on oath but called no additional witness. The claimant's testimony before the court is to the effect that he was short paid N7,000.00 every month from October 2007 to 25th August 2008. That there was an oral agreement between himself and the 3rd respondent which was a promise of N700,000.00 to be paid to him. Under cross-examination, the claimant testified that he was employed as a store keeper by the 1st respondent. He was transferred from the store to the grinding section of the 1st respondent and that the transfer was in writing. He stated further that no letter was given to him on the promise of N700,000.00 by the 3rd respondent on behalf of 1st respondent. No letter was given to him to build the factory. That the N700,000.00 was not a fee but a promise. His letter of termination states that he was relieved of his job due to reorganization in the company. He was given a month's salary in lieu of notice which he received and signed for and that the N7,000.00 monthly short payment he is claiming is not for overtime. The claimant closed his case after his testimony. The respondents did not call any witness. Both counsel agreed to and filed written addresses and adopted same. The claimant raised two issues for determination in his written address. These issues are:- 1. Whether his termination was wrongful in the circumstances of this case 2. Whether he is entitled to N7,000.00 per month that he was short paid on his salary from October 2007 to August 2008 and also entitled to the N700,000 he is claiming. On the 1st issue relating to his termination of appointment, the claimant submitted that the respondent cannot even deny terminating his appointment because they gave him a letter to that effect titled "termination of appointment" and then referred to the case of Confidence Insurance Ltd v. Trustees of OSCE [1999] 2 NWLR (Pt. 591) 373 Ratio 13. That if the respondents argued that, his appointment was not terminated it means the letter titled "termination of appointment" dated 25th August 2008 given to him by the 1st respondent was wrongful. The claimant submitted that because the respondents argued that his appointment was not terminated but that he was laid off as a result of reorganization in the factory, it means that the respondents deliberately withheld his letter of lay-off; hence he urged the court to invoke the provisions of section 149(d) of the Evidence Act against the respondents. He also referred the court to the decision on Nig. Ltd v. Daosu NWLR (Pt. 281) 372 (the year of the citation is not given). He pointed out that the only query given to him was the faulty one dated 15th August 2008 because the query gave him 12 hours within which to reply as against 24 hours stated in the Employees' handbook. He submitted that the query is incompetent because anything done which in itself is void in law becomes a nullity, referring to VAC v. Me Foy [1961] 3 WLR 1405 at 1409. The claimant denied receiving the query and warning allegedly issued to him on 21st August 2008 because he did not sign for them unlike the other documents exhibited and attached to the statement of defence, which he signed for. He urged the court not to attach any weight of evidence to the two documents. He also urged the court to give the claimant benefit of doubt on his denial of the documents, referring to NAIL v. NUCANMPW [2007] 8 NLLR (Pt. 21) 197 at 236Hand237 A-I. The claimant argued that most of the documents attached to the statement of defence were put in by the respondents to pollute the claimant's record because he was a branch union executive. That the court should note that the respondents never denied the fact that the claimant was a branch union executive. He urged the court to use this unchallenged evidence for him, referring to Omoregbee v. Lawani [1980] 12 NSCC 164. He contended that the handbook pleaded by the respondents is not in existence and that the one that is available is written in Chinese language and interpreted into English language by the 2nd respondent. He, therefore, urged the court to give him the benefit of doubt. On the second issue i.e. whether the claimant is entitled to the N7,000.00 monthly that he stated was short paid and the other N700,000.00 claim, the claimant submitted that with his document titled "Salary Adjustment," his salary was increased to N20,000.00 effective from 1st August 2007. That the letter was issued by the Personnel Manager of the 1st respondent and was counter-signed by the claimant's Head of Department who is a Chinese and an expatriate. He submitted that a company is a juristic person and that it acts only through its agents or servants, referring to Kate Enterprises Ltd v. Daewoo Nig Ltd [1985] 2 NWLR (Pt. 5)116 Ratio 2. He submitted that the letter of salary adjustment is valid and binding on the 1st respondent and that he is entitled to the N7,000.00 monthly that he was short paid for eleven months from October 2007 to August 2008. In respect of the N700,000.00 oral agreement he is claiming, the claimant submitted that the said agreement between him and the 3rd respondent is valid and binding. He argued that the claimant's inability to state his case under cross-examination was because of his choice of words between oral agreement and promise. That the claimant has furnished enough consideration that will entitle him to the said claim, referring to the dictum of Lord Denning in Pett v. Greghound Racing Association [1968] 2 All ER 545 at 549, Oil Field Supply Centre Ltdv. Johnson [1987] 2 NSCC 725, section 71(l)(c) and (2) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 LFN and Pan African Bank Ltd v. James Ede [1998] 7 NWLR 422. The claimant submitted that because he has fulfilled his own part of the contract, the respondents are estopped from denying their liability, referring to the dictum of Aniagolu, JSC mAyodele James v. Mid Motors [1978] 11 -12 SCat 68. On his other claims, including interest, the claimant submitted that a trial court can proceed to award interest after judgment. His position is that by the rules of this court, his claims can attract interest, referring to Order 21 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007. Where the rules of court do not provide for it and the claimant fails to prove interest, he submitted further that he is entitled to it under judgment, referring to Daniel Holdings Ltd v. UBA Pic [2005] 12 CLRN 2 and Ekwunife v. WAYNES/A) Ltd [1989] 5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422 and also section 17 of High Court Laws (the court was not told which State High .Court Laws). According to the claimant that section permits recourse to the practice and procedure of High Court in England where no provision is made in the local Rules. He submitted that a wrongfully dismissed servant is under a duty to mitigate his own loss, referring to RFC Ltd v. RCC Ltd [1988] (Pt. 537) 683 and ASESA v. Ekwenem [2001] 10 NWLR (Pt. 720) 97 Ratio 7 where the court held that it will take judicial notice of the decline in the purchasing power of the Naira over the years and the economic vicissitudes of the country in making award of damages. He finally submitted that on his claim for general damages and the cost of litigation, he deserves the claims in their entirety and relied on the decision of Coker, JCA in Minister Int. Affairs v. Shugaba A. Darman [1979] 3 NCLR 915 at 956. In their final written address, the respondents prayed the court to dismiss the suit with substantial cost because it is frivolous, full of falsehood, baseless, gold digging, lacking in merit and an abuse of court's process. They jointly and severally counter-claimed against the claimant the sum of N 10m for general damages and for malicious, mischievous and criminal falsehood in the statement of claims, which has maligned the good reputation of the company and brought it to ridicule as a company dealing in illegal arms. The respondents' position is that the claimant was employed by the 1st respondent as a store keeper. That his employment was later confirmed and after a while he was moved from the store to the grinding section. They stated that he was queried and warned at some point in time and later laid off from the 1st respondent's employment as a result of reorganization in the 1st respondent's factory. The respondents denied in strong terms ever engaging in illegal gun-running as alleged by the claimant. They also denied ever engaging the claimant to build their factory neither did they engage him as a contractor. They denied ever short paying the claimant N7,000.00 monthly throughout the period he was in their employment. They argued that the claimant is not entitled to his claimed damages. The 2nd and 3rd respondents in addition contended that there is no cause of action against them in this case. They pointed out that the claimant admitted in evidence before the court that he was paid a month salary in lieu of notice before he was laid off which he signed for as shown in Exhibit 6 attached to their statement of defence. Also that under cross-examination, the claimant admitted that the oral agreement to build the lbt respondent's factory was between him and the 3rd respondent only. That he was not a civil engineer and that the N700,000.00 he is claiming was a promise. The respondent postulated three issues for determination: 1. Whether in the present circumstance of this case it could be said that the laying off of the claimant from the employment of the respondent due to the reorganization and restructuring process could amount to a breach of contract when all entitlements due and payable to the claimant has been paid. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to either special or general damages when all his entitlements has been paid and acknowledged by him. 3. Whether in view of the statement of claim filed by the claimant his evidence before the court, it could be deduced that a contract exist between the claimant and the 1 and 3rd defendants. The respondents submitted that the disengagement of the claimant from the 1st respondent's employment was not wrongful in law and in fact. That section 11(1) and (6) of the Labour Act 2004 allow either of the parties to a contract of employment to terminate it with required notice or with full payment in lieu of the notice. They argued that they complied with this provision of the law with their available evidence before the court especially with Exhibit 6 attached to the statement of defence. They submitted that where an employee accepts salary in lieu of notice he cannot later complain that he was not given notice, referring to CBN v. Maurice Eso Archibong [2001] FWLR 58 at 1036 and Chukwuma v. Shell Petroleum [1993] 4 NWLR (Pt. 289) at 512. They urged the court to hold that the contract of employment was validly terminated. They maintained that the claimant's reference to queries is unnecessary because he was not terminated because of any offence committed but because of re-organisation in the company. They stated that they do not even understand what condition the claimant wanted them to comply with before his employment with them is terminated. They submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any of his claimed damages be it special or general. They contended that general damages is defined as "pecuniary compensation obtainable by a successful party in an action for a wrong which is either a tort or breach of contract", referring to Brig. Gen. B. A. M. Adekunle (Rtd) v. Rockview Hotel Ltd [2004] FWLR (Pt. 188) at 1040. And that special damages is defined as "such damages as the law will not infer from the nature of the act complained of since they are exceptional character wise and must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved". To them the claimant must prove special damages and strictly too. They maintained that the claimant has failed to prove that he is entitled to N7,000.00 monthly for eleven months and that he has also failed to show how he is entitled to the N700,000.00 he is claiming, referring to Dumez Nig. Ltd v. Ogboli [1992] 1 All NLR 141 at 249. They reasoned further that the following three issues arose on the claimant's claim for the sum of N700,000.00. a. Whether the claimant is a Civil Engineer commissioned with the construction of factory. b. Whether the claimant was employed as a store keeper and a contractor by the 1st respondent c. Whether the claimant paid labourers who worked in the construction of the respondents' factory their wages from his personal money, referring to National Bank of Nig. Ltdv. Uche Holding Ltd [2004] FWLR (Pt. 204) at 157. The respondents stated that the claimant could not even show the court what part of the construction work in the factory he built. He could not show any document that designed what he should build in the factory. They submitted that there is no contractual relationship between him on one hand and the 1st and 3rd respondents on the other hand. They further submitted that the only relationship between them was that of employee and employers respectively. There was no letter of award of contract to him from the respondent and that there was no other witness called to corroborate the alleged oral award of the contract. There was no detail on how he went about the construction like the time frame the construction took or its cost. There was even no formal demand for the said sum of N700,000.00 until after his employment was terminated. The respondents urged the court to hold that the claimant is a gold digger, referring to Oceanic Bank Pic v. Chilex Ind. Ltd [2000] FWLR (Pt. 4) at 683. Still on the claimant's claim of N700,000.00 on the alleged contract to build, the respondents prayed the court to consider;- 1. Whether an expatriate company like the 1st respondent will award the construction of their factory to a school certificate holder like the claimant. 2. Whether a multimillion naira factory will be so shabbily awarded orally. 3. Whether it is possible for such factory to be built without any documentary design and other details. The respondents urged the court to hold that the claimant is trying to profit where he did not sow and that the contract between him and the respondents is as spelt out in his letter of employment and which said contract has been validly terminated via their Exhibits 5 and 6 attached to their statement of defence. They finally urged the court to dismiss the claims with substantial cost. There was no reaction by the claimant on points of law. After carefully considering this case, it is our finding that the respondents actually issued a letter to the claimant to put an end to his employment with them. This letter is titled "Termination of Appointment" dated 25th August 2008 and signed by the 1st respondent's Personnel Officer by name Jegede Adeolu, the 4th respondent in this case. In essence the claimant's employment with the 1st respondent was terminated via that letter. It is, therefore, not tenable for the respondents to aver in paragraph 24 of their statement of defence that "the employment of the claimant was not terminated nor was he dismissed as cruelly claimed in paragraphs 25, 26 and 32 of the statement of claim. The claimant was laid off due to the re-organization process going on in the company". In our considered view, the claimant's employment with the 1st respondent was terminated by the respondents and we so hold. Whether the termination was lawful is considered below. The claimant, in the course of establishing his case alleged that the respondents threatened him with a gun while he was in their employment and that the respondents deal in illegal arms and contraband goods. In our considered view, these assertions are criminal in nature, which are not actionable in this court. The claimant averred further that the 1st respondent failed to hold annual meetings. Again this averment is not relevant before us because it is on an issue that is outside the purview of the court's jurisdiction. We, therefore, hold that all those allegations are irrelevant to the determination of the claimant's case before us. We note that the respondents abandoned their counter-claim of N10 million general damages against the claimant. Likewise the claimant abandoned his counter-claim of Nl00,000.00 against the respondents' counter-claim. Therefore, the two counter-claims are hereby dismissed. The respondents raised the issue of proper parties. They argued that the 2nd and 3rd respondents are not proper parties in this matter. However, as rightly pointed out by the respondents, none of the claimant's claims is directed against the 2nd respondent. In other words, no case has been made against the 2nd respondent, Mr. Michael Adesua. In that regard, we do not think that the second respondent is properly before this court as a party. In consequence, we hold that the second respondent is not a proper party in this suit as no cause of action has been made against him. The name of the second respondent, Mr. Michael Adesua, is hereby struck out as a respondent in this suit. As for the third respondent, it is the contention of the claimant that the 3rd respondent, Mr. Thomas Quo Yongyue, is a proper party because the cause of action against him is that he made the promise to pay him (the claimant) the sum of N700,000.00 on behalf of the 1st respondent for the extra efforts put in building and constructing the 1st respondent's factory as a pioneer worker of the 1st respondent. By this contention, the claimant seems to suggest that the 3rd respondent acted as agent of the 1st respondent. If this be the case, for the 3rd respondent to be a proper party in this suit, it must be shown that he comes within any of the exceptions that permit a personal action to be maintained against an agent even when the principal is disclosed. We have not been shown how the 3rd respondent is personally culpable regarding the promise to pay N700,000.00 when it is admitted that the promise was made on behalf of the 1st respondent. What all this means is that the 3rd respondent is not properly before this court regarding the claim for N700,000.00. In our view, we are required to resolve three issues in this case: 1. The nature of the claimant's employment in the 1st respondent's factory. Was he employed as a store keeper or a building contractor? 2. Was his employment validly terminated and what was his monthly salary as at the time his employment with the respondents was terminated? 3. Is the claimant entitled to his claim for N1million special damages broken down as; N77,000.00 short pay, N223,000.00 interest for holding up the N77,000.00 and; N700,000.00 for extra effort put in building/construction of the 1st respondent's factory. And N1million general damages for breach of employment contract jointly and severally and for the N500,000.00 cost of litigation? On the first issue which is the nature of the claimant's employment in the respondents' factory; from the letter of employment attached to his statement of facts, and admitted by the respondents, the claimant was employed as a store keeper in the company with effect from the 1st of January 2007 with monthly salary of N9,000.00. The breakdown of his monthly salary is: basic salary - N6,000.00, housing N2000.00, transport N500.00 and medical allowance N500.00 respectively. On the 1st of July, 2008 his employment was confirmed via letter dated 17th June, 2008 and signed by Guo Yongyue for the 1st respondent. The claimant's salary was raised to N13,500.00 in that letter broken down as follows: Basic N6,500.00, Housing N2,000.00, Technical N4,000.00, Transport N500 and medical N500. The claimant however claims that his salary was raised to N20,000.00 in the respondents' company via a letter dated 28th August, 2007 titled 'Salary Adjustment' and signed by Mohammed A. Adatnu the Personnel Manager of the 1st respondent (incidentally the counsel to the claimant in this matter). He argued that this new salary was paid to him in August and September 2007 only, after which the respondent paid him N13,000.00 monthly until he was terminated from their service. The question now is what was the claimant's salary as at the time his service was terminated? Was it N13,500.00 or N20,000.00 monthly? As pointed out above, when the claimant was given the employment in January 2007 his salary was N9,000.00. On the 1st of July 2008 his service was confirmed and his salary was raised to N13,500.00. On 28th August 2007 his salary was adjusted upward to N20,000.00 with effect from 1st of August 2007. All these then mean that even before his employment was confirmed, the claimant's salary was upwardly adjusted to N20,000.00. Then ten months after, the claimant's employment was confirmed and his salary put at N13,500.00 monthly with detailed breakdown as stated above. The management even congratulated the claimant and urged him to continue to discharge his duty creditably well so as to retain the confidence of the management in his ability and efficiency. These are documents exhibited by the claimant himself in this case. From all of this, we wonder how in 2007 the claimant's salary would be adjusted to N20, 000 per month and yet in 2008 when his employment was confirmed he was placed on a salary of N13,500 per month and then congratulated for it. This scenario renders suspect the said letter of salary adjustment where the monthly salary of the claimant was said to be at N20, 000. Does it then mean that the claimant was demoted when he was confirmed or what? In our view there is no logic or convincing truth in the claimant's position here. Besides, the claimant's letter of employment and confirmation letter have detailed breakdown of his total monthly pay/salary and other allowances but the letter of salary adjustments does not. How then did the writer of the letter of salary adjustment arrive at N20,000.00 monthly? What is the breakdown? All these have raised serious doubt as to the authenticity of the letter of Salary Adjustment, more so when the waiter or author of the letter is the present counsel of the claimant before the court. In our view, therefore, the letter having been written by an interested person appears to be in contemplation of this case. We are, therefore, attaching no weight to it and so cannot rely on it for purposes of this judgment. We hereby hold that the monthly salary of the claimant as at the time he left the respondents' employment was N13,500.00. The claimant's employment with the respondent was terminated via a letter titled 'Termination of Appointment' dated 25th August 2008 and signed by the 4th respondent. According to the claimant, the respondents broke the contract of employment between him and them because the 1st respondent did not give him required notice before the termination and also for giving him faulty query which he was to answer within 12 hours instead of within 24 hours. The claimant did not however tell the court the required notice he was entitled to before his employment could be properly terminated. In the evidence before us, the duration of employment of the claimant with the 1st respondent was from 1st January 2007 to 25th August 2008. That was for one year and seven months. In section 1 l(2)(b) of the Labour Act Cap LI LFN 2004 for any employment that is less than two years work duration, the length of notice required for its termination is only one week. The party terminating the contract can either give this notice or pay salary in lieu of the notice. In the letter of termination of the claimant's appointment, it is stated that a month salary is given in lieu of notice. In Exhibit 6 attached to the statement of defence, it is indicated that the claimant collected N12,760 as his salary and allowances for August 2008 (for 18 days), N7,200 as September's basic salary in lieu of notice, N7,200 as leave bonus (for 10 months) and Nl,600 as 5 days' leave pay for 2007; all totaling N28,760.00. The claimant admitted being paid salary in lieu of notice in evidence under cross-examination before the court. We, therefore, agree with the respondents and hold that the respondents did not breach the employment contract they had with the claimant; rather they were even magnanimous with him in giving him salary for the whole of September 2008 together with his leave bonus including that of 2007. We, therefore, hold that the respondents validly terminated the claimant's employment in their company. The claimant argued that he was being victimized with the series of queries given to him and his subsequent termination because he was a branch union executive in the 1st respondent's company. He attached a copy of the queries from the 1st respondent which he tagged 'in¬adequate' because of insufficient hours given to him within which to respond to the query. In the said query, the claimant was asked to explain why he was absent from work for more than two days without permission and also his flagrant disobedience to the rules and regulations of the company. In the first place, the claimant claims to belong to a union to which he is an officer; yet this court was not told which union. Secondly, even if the claimant was in truth a member of a union, having to carry out union activities is not absolute; there are conditions attached under section 9(6)(b) of the Labour Act where union activities are permitted only if they are outside working hours or if within working hours with the consent of the employer. None of these conditions was proved to exist in this case by the claimant. One wonders then whether the claimant had the leverage to pick and choose when to go to work without permission because he was supposedly a union executive. In our considered opinion, there is no evidence of victimization or intimidation of the claimant by the respondents for union activities and we hold as such. This means that the assertion by the claimant that his employment was terminated because of union activities cannot be correct; and so the termination of employment is lawful. The claimant is claiming N700,000.00 from the respondents for extra effort he put in building and construction of the 1st respondent's factory. On this, the claimant submitted that the claimed sum originated from an oral agreement between him and the 3rd respondent. He submitted that he fulfilled his own part and that the 1st respondent must fulfill its part. An agreement such as the one presently asserted by the claimant ought to be in writing. That the claimant made it out to be oral without any proof other than his words for it, raise doubt as to the existence of the agreement. We cannot, therefore, situate the agreement the claimant is talking about for purposes of this suit; neither do we understand the claimant's part of the agreement that he fulfilled. As a matter of fact, the claimant could not adduce any evidence as to any agreement between him and the respondent on this issue. In one breath, he referred to the alleged transaction between them as a promise and in another he calls it an oral agreement. Regarding the part played by the claimant, we do not know if he was the contractor, a labourer or worker at the construction of the 1st respondent's factory. We do not think that the claimant has succeeded in establishing this claim at all and we hereby hold that he is not entitled to the said claim of N700,000.00 against the respondents. In any event, an agreement for the payment of money for the construction of the 1st respondent's factory as claimed by the claimant would ordinarily fall outside the purview of the jurisdiction of this court, a court specifically set up with jurisdiction only in respect of labour and related matters. See section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006. Throughout the hearing of this case, the claimant did not prove that this promise to pay N700,000.00 was for a contract of service arising from his employment with the 1st respondent. (It should be noted that the claimant was employed as a Storekeeper and was later moved to the Grinding Section.) In our opinion, therefore, the nature of the promise to pay N700,000.00 relates more to a promise to pay for a contract for service. In other words, the promise did not relate to the claimant as an employee but more as an independent contractor; in which even, this court, as already indicated, would have no jurisdiction to entertain the said claim. The 3rd issue is whether the claimant is entitled to his claimed damages. These damages are the N1million special damages and another N1million general damages which he is claiming for the breach of his employment contract jointly and severally. In Arisons Trading & Engineering Company Ltd v. The Military Governor of Ogun State & 2 ors [2009] 15 NWLR (Pt. 1163) 26, His Lordship Muhammed, JSC delivering the lead judgment at pages 51 - 52 G - B held that - Not only must special damages be specifically pleaded they must be strictly proved by the plaintiff... They are those pecuniary losses actually suffered up to the date of the trial, such as loss of earnings. The requirement of the law in relation to such damages is that it must be pleaded and proved. It is not a matter of hypothetical exercise nor can it be left to conjecture.... At pages 70-71 H - B of the same law report, His Lordship said: It need be stressed as it is also settled that strict proof is mandatory in proof of special damages. This is why in determination of the claim for special damages on a party's pleadings alone, may not be prudent. It must be backed by concrete evidence in court... Special damages have been defined as damages of the type as the law will not infer from the nature of the act, they do not flow in the ordinary course; they are exceptional in their character and therefore, they must be claimed specially and proved strictly.... As we have reasoned in this judgment, the claimant has failed to prove his claim for N77,000.00 against the respondents being the balance of his salary that was short paid from October 2007 to August 2008 because the claimant's concept of this claim is erroneous. The claimant has again failed to prove his claim for the sum of N223,000.00 against the respondents for holding up the purported short payment. As a matter of fact the claimant abandoned this claim at the trial and did not even refer to it in his address. The claimant has also failed to prove his claim for N700,000.00 for the extra efforts put in building and construction of the 1st respondent's factory because he could not prove it at all and strictly too. In essence, the claimant has not succeeded in proving his Nl million special damages claimed against the respondents in accordance with the case law pronouncements as cited and quoted above. Therefore, we hold that claimant's claim of Nl million special damages against the respondents has failed and it is hereby refused. In Alhaji Ahmadu Gari v. Seirafma Nig. Ltd & anor [2008] 2 NWLR (Pt. 1070) 1 at 19, His Lordship Ba'Aba, JCA delivering the lead judgment has this to say on general damages: Now in the law of contract, general damages are those damages which the law implies in every breach and every violation of a legal right... It is the loss which flows naturally from the defendant's act and its quantum need not be pleaded or proved as it is generally presumed by law. The manner in which general damages is quantified is by relying on what could be the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person in the circumstance of the case... general damages are presumed by law to be the direct natural probable consequence of the act complained of and generally incapable of substantially exact calculation… Also in Prof. Ajibayo Akinkugbe v. Ewulum Holdings Nig. Ltd & anor [2008] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1098) 375 at 390 D - F, Aderemi, JSC has this to say on damages: In the consideration of how a plaintiff must deal with damages in his statement of claim, it is often necessary to make a basic distinction between general damage or damages and special damage or damages. General damages often consist in all items of loss, which a plaintiff is not required to specify in his pleadings in order to allow him recover monetary compensation in respect of them at trial. But special damage consists in all items of loss which must be specified or stated by him in his pleadings before they will be allowed to be proved at the trial and recovery of same granted. From the judicial pronouncements cited above, for a plaintiff or a claimant to be entitled to general damages, there must have been a breach and a violation against his legal right. This breach, violation or loss should have flown naturally from the act of the defendant or the respondent according to the general judgment of a reasonable person. In the case at hand, what is the loss that the claimant has suffered, which is flowing naturally from the respondents' act, according to the opinion and judgment of a reasonable person? Based on our findings as stated above, the claimant has not suffered any loss from the respondents' act and his employment with the 1st respondent was properly terminated. We hereby hold that the claimant did not suffer any loss for the termination of his appointment; hence his legal right was not breached nor violated by that termination. The claimant is, therefore, not entitled to the sum of N1million general damages as claimed. We also hold that the claimant is not entitled to the N500,000.00 cost of this litigation he is claiming against the respondents. In all, the claimant has failed to prove all his claims to the satisfaction of this Court. His action fails and it is hereby dismissed. We make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. Hon. Justice B. 6. Kanyip Presiding Judge Hon. Justice V. N. Okobi Hon. Justice F. I. Kola-Olalere Judge Judge