Download PDF
REPRESENTATION Matthew Obu for the Claimant. Idowu Akinloye for the Defendant. JUDGMENT By a General Form of Complaint dated 19/6/13, the Claimant in this suit approached the Court for the following reliefs: 1. An order directing the Defendant to pay the sum of N575,000 (Five hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira Only) representing the balance sum the Claimant is entitled to in lieu of notice of Termination of the claimant’s contract of employment by the defendants without notice, and interest of 21% per annum on same from the 26th day of June 2012 when the money became due and payable to the Claimant until Judgment is delivered in this case. 2. An order directing the Defendants to pay the sum of N500,000.00 (Five Hundred Thousand Naira Only) being damages for breach of contract and Cost of this action. 3. An order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or any of their officers from soiling the professional image of the claimant before employment agencies or any other person. The Claimant's complaint was accompanied with all the requisite processes as required by the Rules of Court. On 7/7/13, 1st Defendant filed its Statement of Defence accompanied by List of Witness, 1st Defendant's witness Statement on Oath and copies of the Documents to be relied on at trial. A reply to the 1st Defendant's Statement of Defence was filed by the Claimant on 12/8/13. Consequent upon a Motion on Notice for an order to strike out the name of the 2nd Defendant dated 2/10/13, moved on 27/11/13 and not objected to by the Claimant the name of the 2nd Defendant was struck out accordingly on the ground of being agent of the 1st Defendant at all material time. The case of the Claimant, in brief, was that he was offered employment by the Defendant vide a letter of offer of employment dated June 18, 2012 and admitted as Exhibit D1 1-3; that in his letter of employment, his total remuneration was given to be =N=600,000.00 and was given 6 months probation period after which his appointment would be confirmed and that during the period of probation, the contract could only be terminated by a two week notice or full payment in lieu of notice, but after confirmation, it shall be one month notice before termination or one month payment in lieu. Claimant further averred that although his employment was effective from 21/6/12 the said employment was terminated on 26/6/12 making him to work for only 5 days with the Defendant without requisite notice given. Claimant further averred that instead of being paid =N=600,000.00 being his one month salary, Defendant only sent a Cheque of =N=25,000.00 as his entitlement. On 13/2/14, Claimant opened his case and testified as CW1, adopted his witness statement on oath dated19/6/13 and tendered 8 Exhibits- Exh. C1-Exh. C8. The Exhibits are - 1. Letter of Offer of Employment dated 18/6/12; 2. Letter of instruction to Counsel dated 9/7/12; 3.Letter of Claimant's Solicitor dated 9/7/13; 4. Letter of Claimant's Solicitor dated 13/7/13; 5. Copy of GTB Cheque dated 25/7/13; 6. Letter from Defendant dated 26/5/13; 7. Letter of Request dated 31/5/13; and 8. Letter of Claimant's Counsel dated 5/6/13. Under cross examination, claimant testified that he was not a Chartered Accountant; that he worked for about 3 weeks with the Defendant; that his employment was terminated on 27th or 28th of June 2012; that he did not receive any Payslip from the Defendant and neither was he paid any salary by the Defendant; that a Cheque for =N=25,000.00 was issued by Defendant to his Solicitor and that his Solicitor gave the said Cheque to him and he cashed same. The Defendant also opened and closed its case on 13/2/14 when it called one Otiti Nicol as DW1 and tendered one Exhibit-Exh. D1. The case for the Defendant was that it employed the Claimant by a letter of offer of employment dated 18/6/12; that Claimant was offered a gross monthly salary of =N=50,000.00 and the total annual salary of =N=600,000.00; that the employment took effect from 21/6/12; that same was terminated on 26/6/12 and that Claimant was paid a cheque of =N=25,000.00 being Claimant's gross salary for 2 weeks as payment in lieu of notice as stated in the Claimant's contract of employment. Under cross examination DW1 testified that the terms stated in the letter of employment are acceptable to Defendant; that reference on page 2 of Exh. D1 under Remuneration and Fringe Benefits is to the salary structure as stated there under; that it was not stated in Exh. D1 that the salary stated therein is annual salary but that Defendant usually informed staff during interview session of such before staff are given letters of offer; that 2 Weeks salary offered to the Claimant in lieu of notice was fair =N=25,000.00 being half of his monthly salary; and that from the letter of offer =N=25,000.00 is the 2 weeks salary. DW1 stated further that after sending the =N=25,000.00 Defendant did not receive from the claimant; that there was nobody by the name Owoade Kolawole working with the Defendant and that Security Guards sometimes collect letters at the Defendant's gate but would take such letters in for a staff of Defendant to sign . Under reexamination, DW1 testified that there exists a difference between how salary is paid and salary structure; that how salary is paid refers to whether payment is made every 2 weeks or monthly while salary structure refers to details or scale of salary; that the mode of payment does not refer to monthly payment of =N=600,000.00 stated in Exh. D1 and that the total remuneration and monthly salary are not the same. Parties closed their respective cases and filed their final written addresses as directed by the Court. Defendant's 7-page final written address was dated and filed 6/3/14. In it Counsel set down 2 main issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether Claimant, having collected the sum of =N=25,000.00 payment in lieu of notice of termination is entitled to any other sum from the Defendant. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to a claim of damages against the Defendant. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that it is pertinent to determine how much the Defendant offered the claimant as monthly salary. Counsel referred to Exh. C1 and stated that a cursory look at the first sentence and first paragraph of that exhibit refers to series of interviews which the staff of Defendant had with the Claimant culminating in his employment. Counsel referred to Black's Law Dictionary, 7th Edition which defined the word 'total' to mean 'whole; not divided; full complete; utter; absolute'. Counsel submitted that the word 'total' in Exh. C1 means claimant's total annual package, which it really was. In paragraph 4.8 of his final written address learned Counsel stated thus ''...the maker of Exhibit C1 stated during cross examination that the salary structure listed in the exhibit is the annual salary''. Counsel submitted, citing Leadway Assurance Company Limited v. Zeco Nigeria Limited (2004)22 WRN SC 1 and urged the court to act on the unchallenged evidence before it and hold that the salary of the Claimant was =N=50,000.00. Learned counsel further submitted that Claimant having accepted the =N=25,000.00 cheque given by the Defendant and having cashed same claimant must be deemed to have agreed that his appointment was validly terminated. Counsel cited Angel Spinning & Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2000) FWLR (Pt. 23) 1332 at 1342 where the court stated thus: ''In the determination of the contract of service of the Respondent, the Appellant gave the Respondent one month salary in lieu of notice, with the letter informing the Respondent of the cessation of his appointment. The Respondent accepted both the letter dated 12th December, 1994 and the one month salary in lieu of notice. In that act of the Respondent acceptance of salary paid by his employer in lieu of one month termination of his appointment, the Respondent has created a 'fait accompli' and has agreed that his appointment was validly and effectively terminated''. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that the remedy of an employee wrongfully terminated or dismissed is to sue for damages and the measure of such damages is always the salary for the length of time for which notice of termination could have been given in accordance with the contract of employment, citing Onalaja v. African Petroleum (1991)17 NWLR (Pt. 206) 691; Nigeria Produce Market Board v. Adewumi (1991)All NLR (Pt. 2) 433. Counsel therefore submitted that Claimant having been paid =N=25,000.00 in lieu of notice, claimant is not entitled to damages whatsoever. He urged the Court to so hold. Learned Counsel thus urged the Court to dismiss the claim of the Claimant with substantial cost. Claimant's 7-page final written address was dated and filed 28/3/14. Learned Counsel for the Claimant submitted 4 issues for determination as follows: 1. Whether in interpreting Exhibit C1 (1-3) the Claimant is entitled to the sum of =N=575,000.00 in lieu of notice of termination of the claimant's contract of employment by the Defendants. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to the interest of 21% per annum on the said =N=575,000.00 from 26/6/12 when the money became due and payable to the Claimant and Judgment is delivered in this case. 3. Whether the Defendant's none dispute of the sum of =N=500,000.00 being damages for breach of contract and cost of this action entitles the Claimant to the said sum. 4. Whether the Defendant's none dispute of the Claimant's claim for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants or any of their officers from soiling the professional image of the Claimant before employment agencies or any other person entitles the Claimant to such order. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel submitted that the contents of letter of offer to the Claimant was clear as to the remuneration of Claimant which is =N=600,000.00 per month. Counsel submitted that there was no mention of =N=50,000.00 as monthly salary of the Claimant in Exh C1 which was the letter of offer of employment. Citing IBWA v. Imano (Nig.) Ltd & Anor. (1988) NSCC (Pt. 11) 245 ; PDP v. INEC (1990)11 NWLR (Pt. 626) 200 at 261 Counsel urged the Court to interpret Exh. C1 literally there being no ambiguity in it. Counsel further submitted that DW1 did not prove the assertion that Defendant had an agreement orally with the Claimant for a monthly remuneration of =N=50,000.00. Counsel cited sections 135 and 137 of the Evidence Act which place the burden of proof on the party who asserts. Counsel also cited the case of UAC (Nig.) v. Sobolu (2007)6 NWLR (Pt. 1030) 368 and urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted that Claimant is entitled to both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. According to learned Counsel, award of pre-interest judgment interest is sanctioned by law, citing NMB Ltd v. Aiyedun Inv. Ltd (1998)2 NWLR (Pt. 537) 221 and that the general rule is that monetary judgment attracts appropriate interest even where not claimed. Counsel cited Diamond Bank Ltd. v. PIC Ltd (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67 and Order 21, Rule 4 , National Industrial Court Rules, 2007. Counsel urged the Court to hold that Claimant is entitled to interest of 21% on the sum applied for. On issue 3, Counsel submitted that Defendant did not counter Claimant's claim for Damages and not having done so , Defendant must be deemed to have admitted the claim. Counsel submitted that what is admitted need not be proved by any of the parties at trial but will be taken as established. Counsel cited Section 123, Evidence Act, 2011 and Oseni v. Bajulu (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 164. Counsel stated that he had adduced evidence of debt incurred in instituting this action and particularly Exh. C2 which acknowledged the obligation of the Claimant to pay his Counsel all professional fees relating to the case. Counsel urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. The 4th issue raised by the Claimant is in relation to an order of Court for perpetual injunction restraining the Defendants or any of their officers from soiling the professional image of the Claimant before employment agencies or any other person. Counsel submitted that the evidence led by Claimant respecting same was not contradicted. Counsel urged the Court to hold that the fact established and unchallenged by the Defendant is deemed proved without any need for additional evidence. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to resolve all issues raised in favour of the Claimant and grant all the reliefs sought. I have read and understood all the processes filed in this case. I listened with understanding to the oral submissions of learned counsel in court in this case. I have also reviewed and evaluated all the exhibits tendered and admitted in this case. Having done so, l consider a lone issue as appropriate for the determination of this case thus: Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims as per his complaint dated 19/6/13. The claims of the claimant are 3 in number as endorsed on the Complaint dated 19/6/13. The first of the claims is for an order directing the Defendants to pay the sum of =N=575,000.00 (Five Hundred and Seventy Five Thousand Naira) representing the balance the claimant is entitled to in lieu of notice of termination of claimant's contract of employment by the Defendants, and interest of 21% per annum on same from 26th day of June 2012 when the money became due to the Claimant until judgment is delivered. There are certain obvious common grounds by the parties in this case. There is consensus that Defendant employed the Claimant as Finance Account Officer 111 effective from 21/6/12. Exhibit C1 is evidence of this. There is also no dispute among parties that Claimant's employment was terminated few days after he was employed. The only area of disagreement between parties which indeed calls for judicial determination is whether the figure stated in the claimant's letter of offer of employment Exhibit CW1-=N=600,000.00, referred to monthly or annual remuneration of the Claimant. A contract of service is the bedrock upon which an aggrieved employee must found his case, he succeeds or fails upon the terms thereof. Therefore in a written or documented contract of service, the Court will not look outside the terms stipulated or agreed therein in deciding the rights and obligations of the parties. See Akinfe v. UBA Plc (2007)10 NWLR (Pt. 1041) 185.There is no doubt that Exh. C1 forms the basis of contractual relationship between the parties in this case. It is therefore the document which calls for consideration of and construction by the Court in determining this case. I have carefully perused the whole of Exh. C1. l considered the position of the Claimant in the 1st Defendant as Account Finance Officer 111, his qualification and his duties and responsibilities as contained in that Exhibit and taking cognisance of the fact that salaries and allowances are usually computed and stated in letters of offer per annum rather than monthly. I watched DW1 while testifying on 13/2/14. I watched her demeanor and studied the body language as well. I hold that this witness was a witness of truth in this case. I have reasons to believe her testimony on oath that salary packages and remunerations were discussed with Claimant during interview. I therefore hold that the amount stated on Exh. C1 i.e =N=600,000.00, is the total annual salary and allowances of the Claimant rather than it being a monthly salary as claimed by the Claimant. No doubt this knocks out the first claim of the Claimant. The second claim is for an order directing the Defendants to pay the sum of =N=500,000.00 being damages for breach of contract. I have held before that Claimant was not entitled to his first claim as his monthly salary was not =N=600,000.00. This claim by the Claimant is predicated on there being a breach of contract of service. Claimant worked for about 4days with the 1st Defendant. Was there a breach of contract of service in this case? Exh. C6 written by the 1st Defendant to the Matthew Ovu's Chambers Claimant's Solicitor conveyed a GT Bank Cheque in the sum of =N=25,000.00 to the claimant as compensation. Exh. C5 is the said Cheque. Both Exhibits were dated 25/7/12. Claimant testified on oath that the Cheque was given to him by his Counsel and that he cashed same. It is instructive to note that the Cheque was not returned and yet it was not until 31/5/13 that Claimant's Solicitor wrote to 'demand for the balance sum our client is entitled to and we seek an amicable and final settlement of this issue to avoid the rigors of litigation'. The law is trite that when an employee accepts salary or payment after employment is brought to an end, he cannot be heard to complain later that his contract of employment was not properly determined. See Ekeagwu v. Nigerian Army (2006)11 NWLR (Pt. 991) 382 (CA). I hold that there is no breach of contract by the 1st Defendant and that being the case a claim for damages based on same fails. The third claim of the Claimant is for an order of perpetual injunction restraining the defendants or any of their officers from soiling the professional image of the claimant before employment agencies or any other person. Claimant did not lead any evidence in proof of this claim. The Court is thus unable to grant the restraining order as sought. Finally, all the issues set down for determination are resolved against the Claimant and in favour of the Defendant. Claimant's claims are dismissed in their entirety. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge