Download PDF
REPRESENTATION G. Ojumah for the Claimants. Oluwayemisi Oluwatuyi for the Defendant. JUDGMENT On the 13th of February 2013, the Claimants herein approached the Court via their General Form of Complaint for the following reliefs - 1. A declaration that the policy of the defendant’s company on Direct Hire Contract is not in line with the International Best Labour Practice and as such is null and void. 2. A declaration that the claimants are entitled to their benefits/gratuity to the total sum of N23,528,000. OR ALTERNATIVELY (i) A declaration that the purported termination of the claimants’ appointment with the defendant’s company based on their refusal to be transferred to another company as staffs is illegal, unconstitutional and as such is null and void. (ii) An order directed against the defendant for the reinstatement of the claimants to their duty post. Both the Claimants and the Defendant filed all requisite processes and frontloaded all documents sought to be relied upon at the trial of this case in accordance with the Rules of this Court. The hearing of this case commenced on the 18th September 2013. At the trial, Claimants called 3 witnesses - Nkwocha Chima CW1, Edward Omorotion CW2 and Andrew Oriakhi CW3. Claimants also tendered 15 Exhibits as follows: Exh. NC 1, NC 2, NC 3, OE1, OE2, OE3, OE4, OE5, OE6, OE7, OE8, OE9, OE10, AO1 and AO2. The case for the Claimants was that they were employed by the Defendant Company under Direct Hire Contract (Contract Staff) at different years; that since the commencement of their employment with the Defendant Company, they were treated as Contract Staff or Second class workers, unequally with those under full employment. The Claimants averred that those under full employment in the Defendant’s company are given preferential treatment in terms of meal, staff transportation and general benefit attached to condition of work; that sometimes in October 2012, the Defendant maliciously called upon the Claimants and told them the Management would be transferring all the Claimants to another Company who will then second them to the Defendant’s Company which all the Claimants rejected. The Claimants also averred that upon their resistance to the move, the Defendant terminated their employment unnoticed; that upon the wrongful termination of their employment the Defendant refused to pay the Claimants all the benefits/entitlements associated with this type of employment termination. The Claimant further averred that their entitlements based on the Company’s policy also accruing to those in full employment are calculated as the addition of the following; i. Gratuity; Total of 12% of annual salary multiplied by the number of years on duty. ii. Leave Allowance; Total of 12% of annual salary multiplied by the number of years on duty. iii. Addition of one month basic salary. iv. Severance. The Claimants also averred that the policy of the Defendant is highly discriminatory against them; that the policy of the Defendant is slavery and this act offends the provision of International Best Labour Practice and Nigeria 1999 Constitution. The case as put forward by the Defendant was that it engaged the services of the Claimants as Direct Hire Contract Staff and executed a legal contract with each of them pursuant to negotiated Terms and Conditions duly acknowledged and agreed to by the Claimants upon acceptance of the Terms of the Contract; that the said contract was terminated by a letter dated 27th November, 2012. The Defendant further averred that the Terms of the Contract indicated that the services of the Claimants were required for a fixed period of 6months, renewable annually afterwards on the suitability of the Claimants’ position and need for extension or otherwise; that the employment of the Claimants was terminated in line with the Terms of their Contract and the Defendant paid the Claimants individually and severally, 3months salary in lieu of notice and the 13th month salary. It was also the case for the Defendant that the Claimants on receipt of the benefits attached to their dismissal, commenced an action before this court claiming that they were entitled to the benefits contained in the Statement of Claim and that their contract was terminated as a result of their refusal to be transferred to another Company as required by the Defendant. The Defendant further averred that the stated benefit paid to the claimants was a mere sign of the Defendant’s magnanimity and not as a result of any contractual obligation laid on the Defendant in the contract executed by the parties as the Claimants were employed as Direct Hire Contract Staff. Nkwocha Chima CW1 testified for the Claimants, adopted his written statement on oath and tendered Exhibits NC1, NC2 and NC3. Under cross examination, CW1 testified that he was employed as a Direct Hire Contract Staff by the Defendant as contained in his letter of appointment of October 2005; that there were terms in the letter and that he agreed to them by signing the letter upon receipt; that on 27/11/12, he was served a letter of disengagement from contract employment by the Defendant which letter he acknowledged by signing on same; that the letter stated that he would be given 3 months salary in lieu of notice and a 13th month salary. Witness testified that he was paid the said 3 months salary in lieu of notice as well as the 13th month salary. According to the witness, the Defendant did all that was contained in the letter of termination. The 2nd Claimant witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated 13th February 2013 and tendered Exhibits OE1 - OE10. Under cross examination, witness testified that he was employed by the Defendant on 12/9/08; that he was given a letter of appointment containing terms and conditions of his employment; that he accepted the letter and the terms contained therein. Witness testified that he was employed as a Direct Hire Fixed Contract Staff; that he was not treated as the Managing Director of the defendant and that it would not be right for him to be treated as the Managing Director of the Defendant when he was employed as a contract staff. He said he was not treated by the Defendant in accordance with the terms and conditions of his employment but rather that he was treated as the other contract staff of the Defendant. Witness said that on 27/11/12 he was served a letter of termination containing some terms and conditions; that he was paid 3 months salary in lieu of notice of termination and 13th month salary as stipulated in the letter of termination. Andrew Oriakhi was called as 3rd witness for the Claimants. Witness adopted his written statement on oath dated 13/2/13 and tendered Exhibits AO1 and AO2. Under cross examination, witness testified that he was given a letter of appointment by the Defendant which contained terms and conditions; that on 27/11/12 he was served a letter of termination of his employment and that he was paid all his entitlements as contained in the letter of termination. Defendant called Olarinoye Taiwo as its sole witness. Witness adopted her written statement on oath dated 26th March 2013 and tendered 3 Exhibits marked as Exh. OT1a, OT1b, OT1c, OT1d, OT1e, OT1f, OT1g, OT1h, OT2 and OT3 respectively. Under cross examination DW1 testified that she was a Payroll Officer of the Defendant; that she knew about the calculation of employees' entitlement; that she was employed as a permanent staff; that Claimants were employed as Direct Hire Contract Staff and that the difference between permanent staff and a Direct Hire Contract Staff was based on the letter of employment of the staff concerned. According to the witness, permanent staff were entitled to unionise while Direct Hire Contract Staff were not so entitled; that while Direct Hire Contract Staff were not entitled to gratuity, permanent staff must work for a minimum of ten years to be entitled to gratuity. Witness further testified that Claimants were not paid in accordance with the Defendant's Handbook because the Handbook was not applicable to them; that the policy of the Defendant in relation to staff was not discriminatory in that each staff had a contract of employment which each signed with the Defendant and that the policy of the Defendant tallied with international best practice in labour relations. Defendant closed its case on 12th November 2013 and the matter was adjourned for the parties to file, serve and adopt their final written addresses. On the 9th of January 2014, learned Counsel for the Defendant filed his final written address. Counsel submitted a lone issue for determination as follows: Whether or not the Claimants are still entitled to the reliefs and benefits contained in the Statement of Claim after they had accepted the terminal benefits (the 13th month salary and 3 month salary in lieu of notice) given by the Defendant at their dismissal. Counsel argued that the cause of action in this suit bordered on legal contract executed between the parties. Counsel thus submitted, citing C.E.O Ekiadolon v. Osayande (2010)6 NWLR (Pt. 1191) 423, that parties to an agreement are bound by the terms of their agreement, and that, in a dispute arising from the agreement, the legal source of information for resolving the disagreement is the Agreement itself. Counsel submitted that it is the law that a court has no jurisdiction to interpret or construe contractual documents more favourably to a party outside the terms and conditions provided in the document, citing Daodu v. UBA Plc (2004)9 NWLR (Pt. 878) 292. Counsel submitted that all the Claimants' witnesses confirmed under cross examination that they agreed to the terms and conditions contained in their respective letters of appointment. Counsel submitted further that the Claimants were employed as Direct Hire Contract Staff by the Defendant as stated in Exhibits NC1, OA1, OE1, OE3, OE5, OE7, OE9 and OE10; that the period of the contract was for a minimum term of 6months, renewable annually afterwards; that there were terms and conditions indicated in the Agreement and that both parties acknowledged the contract and agreed to the terms and conditions therein. Counsel submitted that an employer could terminate an employee's appointment provided he acted within the terms of the employment, citing Daodu v. UBA Plc (supra), Ativie v. Kabel Metal Nig. Ltd (2008)8 MJSC 82 and Olanrewaju v. Afribank Plc (2001)13 NWLR (Pt.371) 691. Counsel submitted that the Claimant having accepted and acknowledged the terminal benefits in their respective letters of termination of appointment, they are prevented from making further claims on the Defendant. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the claim of the Claimants citing Moronfola v Kwara State College of Technology (1990)4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 506. According to Counsel, Claimants having accepted the terminal benefits contained in their letters of termination, they are deemed to have waived their rights, relying on Olaniyan v. The University of Lagos NWLR (Pt. 9) 599 & Onalaja v. African Petroleum Ltd (1991)7 NWLR (Pt. 206) 697. On the declaratory order sought by the Claimants that the Defendant's policy is not in line with International Best Labour Practice, counsel submitted that Claimants did not lead sufficient evidence to support the declaration sought. On the order for declaration that the claimants individually and severally are entitled to gratuity, leave allowance, additional one month salary and the severance package, Counsel submitted that there is evidence that Claimants were engaged for a fixed period of 6 months renewable annually. Counsel submitted that parties are bound by the contract document that gives rise to the relationship between them, citing Doadu v. UBA Plc (supra). Counsel submitted that the Claimants have failed to prove their case on the preponderance of evidence that they are entitled to the reliefs sought having received the terminal benefits indicated in their letters of termination individually and severally. Counsel thus urged the court to dismiss the Claimants claim for being vexatious, gold digging and unknown to the terms of contract executed by the parties. In his final written address dated 23rd January 2014 but filed 24th January 2014 learned Counsel to the Claimant submitted two main issues for determination. These issues are as follows: 1. Whether the termination of appointment by the defendant's company based on their refusal to be transferred to another company as staffs is illegal, unconstitutional and such is null and void; and 2. Whether the claimants are entitled to their benefits/gratuity to the total sum of =N=23,528,000. On Issue 1, learned counsel submitted that Claimants are denied fair hearing in respect of termination of their appointments; that all the Defendant did is to maliciously call upon the claimants and told them that the management would be transferring them to another company who will second them back to the defendant's company. Counsel cited Arinze v. First Bank (2000)1 NWLR (Pt. 639)78. Counsel also submitted that the Defendant failed to comply with its Company Handbook. Citing Tadugoronnu v. Gotom (2002)4 NWLR (Pt. 757) 453; Okhomina v. PHMR (1997)2 NWLR (Pt. 485) 75 Counsel submitted that claimants had discharged the burden of proof on them to succeed. On Issue 2, Counsel submitted that the Claimants are entitled to their benefit/gratuity to the total sum of =N=23,528,000 citing Savannah Bank v. Fakokun (2002)1 NWLR (Pt. 749) 544. According to Counsel, 'in an action for breach of contract of employment, all the court can do is to enquire into the procedure by means of which the servant was dismissed or retired, for example, whether prescribed procedure, if any, was followed and whether the servant has been paid his statutory or common law entitlements such as appropriate retirement benefit'. Counsel referred to Oyedele v. Ife U.T.H (1990)6 NWLR (Pt.155) 194.Learned Counsel urged the court to grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimants. Learned counsel to the Defendant did not file any reply on points of law. Upon oral application, Counsel was allowed 3 minutes to reply on points of law to the submission of the Claimants' counsel. In her oral submission, learned counsel referred specifically to Clause 4.6 of the final written address of the Claimants where Claimants referred to Company's Handbook. According to Counsel, Claimants neither pleaded nor exhibited Company Handbook. According to Counsel, that did not go to any issue as the issue of Company Handbook was unknown to the terms of the contract between the parties citing Oduwole v. West (2000)10 NWLR (Pt. 1203) 621. I have read and reviewed all the processes filed in this case. I have in addition listened to the oral submissions of counsel in court. I have also reviewed all the evidence led in this case. From all the processes filed, the evidence led, the Final Written Addresses and the oral submissions of counsel in court a lone issue arises for the determination of this case. That is: Whether the Claimants have proved their case to be entitled to the reliefs sought. It is imperative for me to make some preliminary comments especially as relates to final written addresses generally. A final written address is a legal document that contains case fact, legal issues and laws delivered to a Court for consideration in a case. It is primarily meant to save time and obviate unnecessary delay in the administration of justice. See Boniface B. Gwar v. S. O. Adole (2002) LPELR 7080 CA per Mangaji JCA. It outlines details that may have an impact on the court's final decision. The importance of final written addresses have become such that most if not all Rules of Courts have made provisions for it. See for instance Order 19 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court Rules 2007 & see also Order 30 Rules 13-15 of the High Court of Lagos (Civil Procedure) Rules 2004. In Obodo v. Olomu & Anor (1987) LPELR-2189, the Supreme Court pointed out that addresses are not directed at the court alone; and that the purport of address by a party is to let the Court and his adversary know what his summing up on the facts and the law as revealed by the evidence before the Court. It is important to point out that a major rationale for filing a final written address is to clearly and concisely convince the Court that the opinion expressed is the correct, logical, reasonable and legal one. By so doing, the Court is being assisted in arriving at a just decision based on the facts, evidence adduced and the position of the law. A good written address should ordinarily contain the claim(s); a brief statement of facts with reference to exhibits tendered at trial; the identified issues arising from evidence for the determination of the Court; a clear and succinct statement on each of the issues with reference to judicial and statutory authorities in support. A brief conclusion with the prayer of the party is certainly an ideal way to end a well written address with a list of authorities provided at the end. It makes for good practice that a Written Address (especially for a trial court) be prepared by a Counsel or one of the Counsel who handle the trial. The final written address by the Claimants in this case is not of much assistance to this Court. Unfortunately, the address was prepared by a counsel who never appeared in this case at all. It is for instance amazing that in a 10-page written address barely 3 pages were devoted to argument and submissions on issues raised. It could perhaps have been different if the learned counsel who prepared same had been part of the hearing of this case or in possession of the record of proceedings in the case. After all the quality of advocacy of the Bar goes to some extent in determining the quality of output of the Bench. The first relief sought by the Claimants was a declaration that the policy of the Defendant's company on Direct Hire Contract is not in line with the international best labour practice and as such is null and void. A mention of this relief was made for the first and last time in the endorsement on the Claimants' claim on the 13th February 2013. No mention of same was made in any other process of the Claimants. Not even in the witnesses written statement on oath. In their Evidence in Chief on the 18th September 2013 both CW1 and CW2 did not lead any evidence to this relief . There is however on record the testimony of CW2 that he was employed as a direct and fixed contract staff of the Defendant; that he was not treated as the Managing Director of the Defendant and that it would not be right for the Defendant to treat him as the Managing Director when he was employed as contract staff. The testimony of the DW1 in respect of this claim is instructive. DW1 testified that the Defendant treated all staff in accordance with the terms and conditions of their employment. My finding in relation to the first claim is that the Claimants have failed to prove their first claim, evidence not having been led for same and i so hold. The second claim of the claimants is a declaration that the Claimants are entitled to their benefits/gratuity to the total sum of =N=23,528,000. Both CW1 and CW2 confirmed under cross examination that there were terms and conditions for their employment and that these terms and conditions were contained in their letters of employment which they agreed to and signed upon receipt. It is trite to say that the letters of employment containing the terms and conditions of employment formed the basis of the contract of service between the parties. It is also trite to state that the court will uphold the sanctity of parties intention and give effect to an agreement voluntarily entered into by parties. See Sona Breweries Plc v. Sir Shina Peters & Anor. (2005)1 NWLR (Pt. 908) 478 at 489 and CBN v. System Application Products Nigeria Limited (2005)3 NWLR (Pt. 911) 152 at 186. I find and hold that there is no provision for terminal benefit or gratuity in the letters of employment of the Claimants on the basis of which the court could thus find in their favour. It is important to point out that the three Claimants' witnesses stated under cross examination that they were individually paid by the Defendant 3 months salary in lieu of notice and 13th month salary as stipulated in their letter of termination of employment. I find and hold that it will certainly be unconscionable for the court to allow the Claimants to make and receive the present claim. By the acceptance of that letter of termination and the benefits therein contained, the employment of the Claimants was effectively terminated, see Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (supra). I find and so hold that this claim equally fails. In alternative to the above claims, the Claimants sought a declaration that the purported termination of the claimants appointment with the Defendant's company based on their refusal to be transferred to another company as staff is illegal, unconstitutional and as such null and void. To be entitled to this declaration, the Claimant must satisfy the court that indeed the Defendant violated a section or sections of a statute which constitutes the illegality as well as the section of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 as amended. Throughout the hearing of this case no such evidence was led or adduced by the Claimants. It is not enough for the Claimants to assert illegality on the part of the Defendant. It is incumbent upon it to prove same by adducing evidence. That is not the case here. Now as regards a call for the court to declare the termination of the Claimants employment as null and void, the Claimants cannot be heard to seek such a declaration. Claimants confirmed that they were paid all their entitlements as contained in their letters of termination -3 months salary in lieu of notice and that they were paid 13th month salary as well. On the authority of Olaniyan v. University of Lagos (supra) i hold that this relief is not available to the Claimants. In any event, the law is settled, that in a master and servant relationship, a dismissal or termination of the employee's employment by the employer cannot be declared null and void and of no effect, see Osusanya v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (2007) LPELR-2809. The last alternative prayer sought by the Claimants was an order directed against the Defendant for the reinstatement of the Claimants to their duty post. Reinstatement, in the words of Tucker J in Hodge v. Ultra Electric Ltd (1943)1 K.B 462 at 466, involves putting the specified person back in law and in fact in the same position as he occupied in the undertaking before the employer terminated his employment. However, in a master/servant relationship, the court will not order a reinstatement. The rationale for this being that the court cannot and will not impose a willing servant on an unwilling master, see Osisanya v. Afribank Nigeria Plc (Supra).Indeed in the instant case, the Claimants cannot be heard to seek this relief after being served letters of termination of employment and paid all the benefits attached to same. The quest for this relief by the Claimants therefore fail. Finally, all the claims of the Claimants both the main and those sought in alternative fail and are here dismissed accordingly. I make no order as to cost. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge