Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE J. D. PETERS DATE:SEPTEMBER22, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/528/2012 BETWEEN Mr. Bola Muyiwa Omilabu - Claimant AND 1. Topbrass Aviation Limited 2. Mr. Kenneth Oehlers - Defendants REPRESENTATION B.A. Ayeni with E.T. Ugwuanyi for the Claimant. Abdulazeez Jimoh with Miss G. Adenuga for the Defendants. JUDGMENT The Claimant by a General Form of Complaint dated 17/10/12 approached the Court for reliefs against the Defendants as follows: i. A declaration that the Defendants’ Letter of Demotion dated 4th January, 2011 is a breach of the Claimant’s contract of employment, wrongful, baseless and tantamount to an unlawful termination thereof. ii. An order directing the Defendants to pay to the Claimant, the sum of N11,481,833.10 (Eleven Million, Four Hundred and Eighty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty Three Naira, Ten Kobo), being payment consisting as follows: N K (a). Rent, agency and agreement fees paid for accommodation - 2,880,000. 00 (b). Half Salary for September, 2010 - 750,000. 00 (c). Half Salary for October, 2010 - 786,028. 00 (d). Salary for November, 2010 - 1,572,057. 00 (e). Salary for December, 2010 - 1,572,057. 00 (f). Pro-rated Salary for January, 2010 - 253,557. 60 (g). Annual Leave Allowances, 2011 - 2,096,076. 00 (h). One Month’s Salary in Lieu of Notice of Termination - 1,527,057. 00 Total - 11,481,833. 10 iii. Interest on the total sum of N11,481,833.10 (Eleven Million, Four Hundred and Eighty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty Three Naira, Ten Kobo) at the rate of 23% per annum from 1st February, 2011 up till the day judgment is delivered and 10% on the sum thereafter until the judgment sum is fully liquidated. iv. General Damages of N10,000,000.00. v. Cost of the action. Claimant's Complaint was accompanied by a statement of facts, list of witness, claimant's written statement on oath, list and copies of documents to be relied upon at trial. The 1st Defendant reacted by filing a statement of defence and counter-claim dated 8th March 2013. This process was accompanied by all requisite processes including list and copies of documents to be relied upon by the 1st Defendant at trial. The 1st Defendant's counter-claims are as follows: a. The sum of N499,950.00 (Four Hundred and Ninety Nine, Nine Hundred and Fifty Naira) being one month’s basic salary in lieu of the notice which the Claimant ought to have given the 1st Defendant in consequence of his unilateral termination of his employment. b. An order directing the Claimant to return to the 1st Defendant forthwith the following items belonging to the 1st Defendant but which the Claimant has unjustifiably retained, namely: (i) One Laptop Computer (with the 1st Defendant’s information stored on it intact), (ii) One Blackberry Phone and (iii) Identity Card. 2nd Defendant did not file any defence and was not represented throughout the trial. In response to the pleadings filed by the 1st Defendant, the Claimant filed a Reply dated 3rd May, 2013; and a Further Witness Statement on Oath dated 29th April, 2013. The case for the Claimant is that he was an employee and a member of the Management Team of the 1st Defendant; that he performed the duties and responsibilities of his office diligently and also enjoyed a smooth and robust working relationship with the 1st Defendant and all its members of staff, under the Management and Leadership of Mr. Roland Iyayi; however, upon arrival of the 2nd Defendant (who is a foreigner) and his taking over as the new Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant, there was a sudden change in ‘the tune of music’; that the 2nd Defendant super-imposed himself on the Management of the Company and frustrated all the efforts of the Claimant to continue with the diligent performance of the duties of his office, by usurping the Claimant’s duties, for no justifiable reason; that the 2nd Defendant also rendered the working environment of the 1st Defendant highly tensed and unpleasant, as he persistently engaged in the acts of insult and harassment of the entire staff of the 1st Defendant, more particularly, the Claimant and that the 2nd Defendant further subjected the Claimant to inhuman and degrading treatment to wit: assaulting him by spitting on his face, verbal abuse, even in the presence of junior colleagues and persistently threatened to remove him from his position as the Chief Financial Officer of the 1st Defendant, for no justifiable reason. Claimant further averred that as if that was not enough, the 2nd Defendant carried out his threat by demoting the Claimant via Exhibit C2, from his position as the Chief Financial Officer to Financial Controller and ridiculously reduced his monthly salary from N1,572,057 to N750,000, in breach of the terms of his contract of employment; that upon the ensuing fracas that would have developed between the Claimant and the 2nd Defendant, the Claimant was verbally advised by the 2nd Defendant to proceed immediately on indefinite leave, pending the time the matter will be resolved and has not been asked to return to the Office since then. On 18/11/13, Claimant opened its case and testified as CW1. Claimant adopted his written depositions dated 17/10/12 and 29/4/13 as his evidence and tendered 11 Exhibits which were admitted and marked as Exh. C1-Exh. C11. Under cross examination, witness testified, inter alia, that he returned to Nigeria on 29/3/10; that he signed Exh. C1 on the same and returned same to Human Resources Manager of 1st Defendant; that when he arrived on 29/3/10, Mr. Rowland Iyayi instructed a Driver to take him from the Airport to the Guest House; that while at the Guest House he did not personally pay for his lodging; that he was not the only staff of 1st Defendant staying at the Guest House; that he reported verbally to the HR Manager, CEO and Mr. Rowland Iyayi that he was leaving the Guest House and that it would be incorrect to say that he has no evidence that he informed the people mentioned. Witness further testifies that he was part of the Management Team of the 1st Defendant; that he attended all meetings to which he was invited; that he was at the meeting where it was decided that members of the Management Team would forgo half salary for 3 months; that he worked for the 1st Defendant for close to 9 months. Witness testified further that upon receipt of Exh. C2, he wrote a response to Mr. Rowland Iyayi, President and Mr. Kenneth Oehlers, the CEO, debunking the content of Exh.C2; that he did not file a copy of that response in Court; that he stopped going to work after receipt of Exh. C2 on the advice of Mr. Rowland Iyayi who also told him to that they would revert to him when they sorted things out and that Mr. Rowland Iyayi verbally advised him to proceed on leave; that he believed Mr. Rowland Iyayi gave the advise having read his 4-page response and his position that the action of the Defendant was a variation of the contract they had; that he did not raise objection when Rowland Iyayi said he should proceed on leave; that he was paid October salary and none for September; that up till the time of hearing he had not been given any letter of termination of appointment; that he did not consider his appointment with the 1st Defendant as still subsisting and that he has 1st Defendant's property in his custody. Under re-examination, witness stated that he left the Guest House because the 1st Defendant did not pay the Guest House; that the Cheques issued to the Guest House bounced and embarrassment from the Guest House staff was much and that the property of the 1st Defendant in his custody are HP Laptop and a Blackberry 8310. The case as put forward by the 1st Defendant is that at all times material to this case, the Claimant was a senior staff employee and part of the Management team of the 1st Defendant; that subsequent to several meetings, the first of which on 15th September, 2010, held with the Claimant in relation to his unsatisfactory job performance; and consequent upon the Claimant’s lack of improvement in his job performance, the 1st Defendant issued a demotion letter dated 4th January, 2011 to the Claimant, as an alternative remedy to termination or outright dismissal; that rather than respond constructively to the 1st Defendant’s letter of 4th January, 2011, the Claimant from the very next day refused to report for work and completely abandoned his duty post from 5th January, 2011. According to the 1st Defendant, it is the case for the Claimant [in his pleadings] that he was purportedly asked to proceed on indefinite leave and, as he was not asked to return to work, he regards that, inter alia, as wrongful and unlawful termination of his employment and that the 1st Defendant however contends that it is the Claimant’s abandonment of his duty post since 5th January, 2011 that constitutes the unilateral termination by the Claimant of his employment with the 1st Defendant. On 28/1/14, 1st Defendant opened its defence and called Miss Ikeme Audu as its sole witness Defence Witness. DW1 adopted her written deposition dated 8/3/13 and tendered 3 documents which were admitted and marked as Exh. D1 - Exh. D3. Under cross examination, DW1 testified that she was aware that 1st Defendant has policy on recruitment of staff; that for senior management staff, 1st defendant takes in to consideration academic qualification and experience and that staff selection is based on merit. According to the witness, there are several disciplinary measures a Company can take against its staff; that disciplinary measures with 1st Defendant range from verbal warnings to written warning, 2nd written warning and termination or dismissal; that in matters of gross misconduct, 1st Defendant has the right to terminate employment without recourse to warnings; that Claimant was not issued any written warning; that at the time when claimant was with 1st Defendant, President was the Head of Management Team and that in event of a dispute between Management staff it goes first to Chief Executive Officer then to the President. DW1 added that salary increase is annually but that the Company is at liberty to increase its staff salary as it deems fit; that in 2010his salary was =N=350,000.00 per month and went up to =N=400,000.00; that accommodation provided the Claimant was an interim measure; that 1st Defendant was indebted to Smiru Guest House and that Claimant's salary was calculated on the basis of letter of offer. At the close of hearing, learned Counsel were directed by the Court to file their final written addresses for adoption. The final written address of the Defendant was dated 24/3/14 and filed on 25/3/14. In it, learned Counsel for the Defendant raised two main issues for the determination of the Court. The issues are as follows: 1. Who, as between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant terminated the Claimant's employment; and 2. Whether, given the pleadings and the evidence adduced in support thereof at the trial, the 1st Defendant is entitled to succeed in its Counter-claim against the Claimant. Arguing issue 1, learned Counsel pointed out that Exh. C2 is no more than what its title says, that is Demotion Letter. Counsel pointed out that Claimant had stated that he was verbally advised by the 2nd Defendant to proceed on indefinite leave pending his recall while under cross examination Claimant had said it was the President of the 1st Defendant (not the 2nd Defendant) who so advised him. Secondly, Counsel also pointed out that Claimant had made mention of a 4-page letter in response to Exh. C2 and that yet claimant did not file the said document in Court. Counsel urged the Court to invoke Section 167(d), Evidence Act, 2011 and hold that if the said 4-page response which is in the possession of the Claimant had been produced in evidence would have been against the Claimant, relying on The People of Lagos State v. Mohammed Umar (2014) LPELR-SC. 455/2012, Alhaji Safianu Aminu & Ors v. Isiaka Hassa & Ors. (2014) LPELR-SC. 44/2002. Learned Counsel submitted that the law is trite that in questions of wrongful dismissal or termination of employment, the Court is to restrict itself to the interpretation of terms and conditions of service and no more. According to Counsel, a plaintiff who seeks a declaration that the termination of his employment was wrongful must prove that he is an employee of the defendant; the terms and conditions of his employment; the way and manner and by whom he can be removed and the way and manner the terms of his employment were breached by his employer. According to learned Counsel, it is not the duty of the employer to prove any of these facts. Learned Counsel cited Olatunbosun v. NISER (1988)3 NWLR (Pt. 80) 25; Shell Petroleum Development Co. of Nigeria Ltd & Ors. v. M. S. Onasanya (1976) SC 57, Akpabot v. PHCN & Ors. (2013) LPELR-20697 (CA), Ziideeh v. R.S.C.S.C (2007)3 NWLR (Pt. 1022) 554 and N.R.W Ind. Limited v. Akingbulugbe (2011)11 NWLR (Pt. 1257) 148. Counsel submitted that the Claimant who pleaded 1st Defendant's Employee Handbook failed to produce same. Counsel urged the Court to hold that had the 1st Defendant Employee Handbook been produced by the Claimant it would have been against the Claimant. Learned Counsel finally urged the Court to, on the premises of contradictory evidence of the Claimant on oath resolve this issue in favour of the 1st Defendant and hold that it was the claimant who unilaterally terminated his employment. With respect to issue 2, learned Counsel hinted that Claimant had under cross examination admitted to having property of the 1st Defendant in his custody while at the same time stating that he did not regard his employment with the 1st Defendant as still subsisting. Counsel submitted, on the authority of Jimoh Atanda v. Memudu Iliasu (2012) LPELR-19962 (SC), that what is admitted need not be proved. Counsel urged the Court to grant the counter claim as sought same having been admitted by the Claimant. On the whole it was the submission of Counsel that the Claimant's evidence is fraught with contradictions, infested with inconsistency and the testimony untrue. Counsel therefore urged the Court to resolve all the issues set down for determination in favour of the 1st Defendant and against the Claimant and grant the counter claims of the 1st Defendant as sought. The final written address of the Claimant was dated 25/4/14 and filed on the same day. In it, learned Counsel raised 3 issues for the determination of the Court. They are as follows: 1. Who, as between the Claimant and the Defendants terminated the Claimant’s contract of employment?. 2. Whether the Claimant has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs sought. 3. Whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to its Counter-claim against the Claimant. On issue 1, Counsel referred to various acts of intimidation and harassment by the 2nd Defendant against the Claimant without justifiable reasons. This, learned Counsel said culminated in Letter of Demotion - Exh. C2. Counsel submitted that Exh. C2 was an expression of personal vendetta and inconsistent with the Claimant's terms of employment as contained in Exh. C1 and that 1st Defendant in repudiatory breach of the fundamental terms of the Claimant's contract of employment which goes to the root of the contract and amount to wrongful termination of the Claimant's employment. Learned Counsel placed reliance on Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997)7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 1 at 16 where the Supreme Court of Nigeria, in espousing the principle of repudiatory breach of contract cited Mayson v. Clout (1924) A.C 980 and stated as follows - ''The law is quite plain. If one party to a contract commits a breach, then if that breach is something that goes to the root of the contract, the other party has his option. He may treat the contract as existing and sue for specific performance; or he may elect to hold the contract as at an end - i.e no longer binding on him - while retaining the right to sue for damages in respect of the breach committed ...'' Learned Counsel further submitted that the application of the principle of repudiatory breach is recognised under the contract of employment. Counsel cited Cantor Fitzgerald International v. Callaghan & Others (1999)2 All E.R 411 where the English Court of Appeal stated the law as follows - ''Whether non-payment of agreed wages, or interference by an employer with a salary package, was or was not fundamental to the continued existence of a contract of employment depended on whether it was deliberate. Where an employer unilaterally reduced his employee's pay or diminished the value of his salary package, the entire foundation of the contract of employment was undermined; thus, an emphatic denial by the employer of his obligation to pay the agreed salary or wage, or a determined resolution not to comply with his contractual obligations in relation to pay and remuneration would normally be regarded as repudiatory ... In the instant case, although the sums at stake, in the context of the overall package, were not very great, they were nevertheless not trivial, and the refusal to pay them was deliberate and determined, motivated by a desire improperly to pressurize the Defendants into harder work. It followed that the decision wholly undermined the contract of employment and constitute a repudiatory breach. Accordingly, the Appeal would be allowed. Learned Counsel submitted that Exh. C2 must be interpreted in relation to the terms of the Claimant's employment as contained in Exh. C1. Counsel submitted that the employment of the Claimant was terminated with effect from 4/1/11 when the letter of demotion was issued as a climax to the many humiliating experience of the Claimant in the hands of the Defendants. Counsel urged the Court to so hold and to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. With respect to issue 2 on whether the Claimant has proved his case and is entitled to the reliefs sought, Counsel responded in affirmative. Regarding the claim for declaration that the Defendants letter of demotion dated 4/1/11 is a breach of the Claimant's contract of employment wrongful, baseless and tantamount to an unlawful termination thereof, Counsel submitted that by Exh. C1 either party may terminate the employment by giving the other party one month notice or one month's salary in lieu of notice and that there is no evidence before the Court showing that the 1st Defendant gave the requisite notice or paid any salary in lieu of notice. Counsel urged the Court to hold that Claimant is entitled to the declaration sought. On claim for rent, agency and agreement fees of =N=2,880,000.00 paid for accommodation, Counsel submitted that by Exh. C1 Claimant is entitled to an accommodation as one of his benefits under the terms of his contract; that the defence that the Hotel accommodation provided for the Claimant was fully paid cannot stand as it has been destroyed by evidence of 1st Defendant's indebtedness to the Guest House and that Claimant was obliged to mitigate the loss to be caused by 1st Defendant, citing Udeaga v. Benue Cement Co. Plc (2006)2 NWLR (Pt. 596) 600 at 621. Counsel submitted that bearing in mind that special damages must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved, Claimant had furnished the Court with Exh. C3 together with GT Bank Cheques dated 9/8/10 and 9/10/10 which evidenced the payment of =N=2,880,000.00 paid by the Claimant in securing an accommodation in accordance with the terms of his contract of employment. Learned Counsel urged the Court to award the sum of =N=2,880,000.00 claimed for accommodation. On claim for half salary for September and October 2010, salaries for November and December 2010; pro-rated salary for January 2011, Annual Leave Allowance and One month salary in lieu of Notice of Termination Counsel stated that these reliefs are clearly stated in Exh. C10 - Claimant's Solicitors' letter dated 7th October, 2011. Counsel submitted that by paragraph 22(a) of its pleadings, 1st defendant admitted to this head of claim of the Claimant and relying on Section 123 of the Evidence Act and the case of Bendel Pilgrim Welfare v. Irawo (1995)1 NWLR (Pt. 369)118, urged the Court to hold that facts already admitted need no further proof. Regarding Exh. D3 where the 1st Defendant contended that Claimant was not entitled to his outstanding half salaries for the months of September and October 2010 where a unanimous decision was alleged to have been taken that all management staff would forgo half of their monthly salary for three month i.e September to November learned Counsel pointed out that the said document is a worthless piece of evidence. Counsel submitted that the said Exh. D3 was not signed by anybody or person. He urged the Court not to assign any probative weight to it, citing Akubuiro v. Mobil Oil (Nig.) Plc (2012)14 NWLR (Pt. 1319) 42. With respect to interest, general damages and cost of the action, Counsel cited Order 21 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007 which allows the Court to award interest at a rate not less than 10% per annum on any judgment. On claim for damages Counsel cited Section 19(d) of the National Industrial Court Act, 2006 which provides inter alia that the Court may award compensation or damages in any circumstance contemplated by the National Industrial Court Act or any Act of the National Assembly dealing with any matter that this Court has jurisdiction to hear. Finally regarding claim for the cost of the action, learned Counsel cited Order 24 of the Rules of this Court as allowing the Court to award the cost of this action in favour of the Claimant. He thus urged the Court to resolve this issue in favour of the Claimant. Issue 3 is whether the 1st Defendant is entitled to its Counter claim against the Claimant. Counsel reiterated his earlier submission that it was the 1st Defendant who terminated the contract of employment between it and the Claimant and hence Claimant is not under any obligation to pay any salary in lieu of notice to the 1st Defendant; that 1st Defendant did not give the particulars of information allegedly contained in the Laptop and hence it is not for the Court to speculate same and that Claimant had pleaded his readiness to surrender the Laptop without any information as well as the Blackberry phone to the 1st Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the Counter claims sought. he also urged the Court grant all the reliefs sought by the Claimant and dismiss the totality of the Counter claims. I have read with understanding all the processes filed in this action. I watched the demeanor of the witnesses called in this case, listened with attention to their testimonies and the oral submissions of learned Counsel on either side and adequately evaluated all the exhibits tendered. Having done all these, i set down the following three issues as germane to the just determination of this case - 1. Whether the Claimant or the 1st Defendant terminated the contract of employment between the parties. 2. Whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims. 3. Whether the 1st Defendant has proved its counter claims to be entitled to same. On issue 1, the law is trite that letter of offer or contract of employment is the foundation of employer/employee relationship. It is that document that states in clear and unambiguous terms the rights, entitlements and obligations of the parties in employer/employee relationship. See Longe v. FBN Plc (2010) LPELR-1793 (SC). It is customary for letter of offer of employment to contain, among others, a detail terms of employment including position offered, remuneration package and provision in relation to termination of same. Exh. C1 is the offer of appointment in the instant case. It states that Claimant was offered the position of Chief Financial Officer on a monthly actual salary of =N=1,500,000.00. Other benefits include Official Car and Accommodation. Provision on Probation and Termination is that - 'Either party may during the period of probation serve one month or pay one month basic salary in lieu of notice. After confirmation, either party may be required to serve three- months notice or pay three months basic salary in lieu of notice'. In the instant case neither party has given any form of notice or paid salary in lieu of same. There was accusation and counter accusation as to which party actually terminated the contract of employment between them. It was the position of the 1st Defendant that by stopping to report for duty upon receipt of Exh. C2, Claimant had terminated the employment relationship. On the other hand the position of the Claimant was that by the said Exh. C2 - Demotion Letter 1st Defendant had put an end to the employment of the Claimant. I think it is correct to state that employment contract is a species of contracts generally. It is also correct to state that every contract has embedded in it some terms which go to the very root of the contract and fundamental. A breach of any of such fundamental terms by either party may thus be taken by the other party as an intention by that party to repudiate an existing contract. The position of the law in such scenario was aptly stated as far back as 1924 by the English Court of Appeal in Mayson v. Clout (1924) A.C 980 at 985. Now almost two decades ago the Supreme Court of Nigeria in Odusoga v. Ricketts (1997)7 NWLR (Pt. 511) 1 at 16, in espousing the principle of repudiatory breach of contract cited Mayson v. Clout (1924) A.C 980 where it was stated as follows - ''The law is quite plain. If one party to a contract commits a breach, then if that breach is something that goes to the root of the contract, the other party has his option. He may treat the contract as existing and sue for specific performance; or he may elect to hold the contract as at an end - i.e no longer binding on him - while retaining the right to sue for damages in respect of the breach committed ...'' See also the case of S.O. Ilodibia v. Nigerian Cement Company Limited (1997)7 NWLR (Pt. 512) 174. What term goes to the root of a contract is a question of fact to be determined on the peculiar circumstances of each case. Now can it be said that the general principle of law on repudiated contract is applicable to contract of employment? That question must necessarily be answered in the affirmative. In Cantor Fitzgerald International v. Callaghan & Others (1999)2 All E.R 411 the English Court of Appeal stated thus - ''Whether non-payment of agreed wages, or interference by an employer with a salary package, was or was not fundamental to the continued existence of a contract of employment depended on whether it was deliberate. Where an employer unilaterally reduced his employee's pay or diminished the value of his salary package, the entire foundation of the contract of employment was undermined; thus, an emphatic denial by the employer of his obligation to pay the agreed salary or wage, or a determined resolution not to comply with his contractual obligations in relation to pay and remuneration would normally be regarded as repudiatory ... In the instant case, although the sums at stake, in the context of the overall package, were not very great, they were nevertheless not trivial, and the refusal to pay them was deliberate and determined, motivated by a desire improperly to pressurise the Defendants into harder work. It followed that the decision wholly undermined the contract of employment and constitute a repudiatory breach. Accordingly, the Appeal would be allowed'. In the instant case, Exh. C1 is the Offer of Appointment. Exh. C2 is the Demotion Letter. It is trite to hold that positions offered, remunerations, allowances, other benefits and issues of termination are fundamental provisions which go to the root of a contract of employment. A breach of any of these therefore may entitle a party to regard the contract as having been repudiated. Exh. C2 not only reduced the rank or position of the Claimant, it also reduced his remuneration exactly by half. The demotion and reduction of salary of the Claimant by half was as a result of alleged ''unsatisfactory job performance'' of the Claimant. Both the act of demotion and reduction of salary was to last for unspecified period of time but rather left to be determined at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant. Indeed paragraph 3 of Exh. C2 said as much in the following words - ''As a result of this, your monthly salary has been reviewed downwards to seven hundred and fifty thousand naira (N750,000) only per month with effect from 1 January 2011. You would remain on probation until such a time when the CEO ascertains that you have come up to speed''. It is beyond doubt that wages occupy a central place in the life of every worker. In the Nigerian environment a worker depends almost solely on his remuneration both for his upkeep and the upkeep of members of his family both nuclear and extended. More often than not an employee accepts an offer of employment either as a result of the attractive remuneration package or the position offered or both. It means therefore that both considerations are fundamental. Where as in the instant case therefore the employer not only reduced the rank of the employee but also reduced his remuneration by half this acts have gone to the root of the contract. They amount to an indirect way of terminating the contract of employment of the Claimant. Claimant thus have no choice than to regard same as having been brought to an end. I find and hold that the reduction of the salary of the Claimant was a fundamental breach of the contract of employment between the parties and a repudiation of the said contract by the 1st Defendant. I further find and hold that the reduction in rank and salary and especially the latter tantamount to termination of the Claimant's employment effective from 4/1/11 without notice as required by Exh. C1. Learned Counsel to the 1st Defendant had drawn my attention to Exh. D3 and had urged me to hold on the basis of same that Claimant was part of a meeting where a decision was allegedly reached to reduce the salaries of management staff by half. That document was not signed by anybody. That document cannot be of any assistance to support the course of justice in this matter. The position of the law is plain and Mbang v. Guardian Newspapers Limited (2010) LPELR-4479 (CA) is an authority for the proposition that an unsigned document is entitled to no weight and is incapable of being used by a Court to resolve facts that are in dispute in an action between the parties. I so find and so hold. The second issue is whether the Claimant is entitled to his claims. The first claim is for a declaration that the 1st Defendant's letter of demotion dated 4/1/11 is a breach of the Claimant's contract of employment, wrongful, baseless and tantamount to an unlawful termination thereof. I have held in resolving issue 1 that it was the 1st Defendant that terminated the employment of the Claimant. Having done so l further declare that the 1st Defendant's letter dated 4/1/11 was a breach of claimant's contract of employment, wrongful and tantamount to an unlawful termination thereof. The second claim is for an order of Court directing the 1st Defendant to pay to the claimant the sum of Eleven Million, Four Hundred and Eighty One Thousand, Eight Hundred and Thirty Three Naira Ten Kobo (=N=11,481,833.10) only. The first head under this claim is for Rent, Agency and agreement fees paid for accommodation. The amount involved is =N=2,880,000.00. In proof of this claim, Claimant tendered Exh. C3 and C3a. The basis of this claim is Exh. C1 which stated that the Claimant is entitled to accommodation in Nigeria however no amount was stated as the monetary value of the accommodation or even the type of accommodation. There is evidence before me that Claimant was temporarily lodged at a Guest House. There is no evidence before me that Claimant was not cared for or allowed to stay in the Guest House though Claimant complained of embarrassment due to indebtedness of the 1st Defendant to the management of the Guest House. Claimant was not driven out of the Guest House either by the 1st Defendant or the management of the Guest House. Claimant however voluntarily left the Guest House and sought a private accommodation. I find it difficult and indeed impossible to find for the Claimant in respect of this claim. That Claimant was entitled to accommodation by virtue of Exh. C1 did not translate to a blank Cheque for him to leave the Guest House where he was accommodated by the 1st Defendant. In any event, Exh. C1 did not state that Claimant could opt out of the temporary accommodation provided by the 1st Defendant and seek a private accommodation the financial burden of which would be borne by the 1st Defendant. This claim is therefore refused being a unilateral expenditure incurred by the claimant on his own volition and without the consent of the Defendant. Claimant claimed his half salary for the months of September - =N=750.000.00 and October - =N=786,028.50 2010. The response of the 1st Defendant was that Claimant was part of a Management Meeting of 20/8/10 where it was decided that members of the management would forfeit half of their salary for three months commencing September, October and November 2010. I have discountenanced Exh. D3 as being unhelpful in deciding this case being an unsigned document. That being the case it remains for me to simply hold and l here hold that there is no proof of the assertion of the 1st Defendant before me. Wages and remunerations generally are both critical and central to the life of every worker and the attitude of both domestic legislation and international conventions on labour and industrial matters is to frown at any act of unnecessarily tampering with wages and remunerations of workers. Section 5(1), Labour Act Cap. L1, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, ILO: Minimum Wages, General Survey of the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations, Report lll (4B), International Labour Conference, 79th session, Geneva, 1992 and see also Kenyan Industrial Court, Case No. 79/2002 of 6th December 2004, Use of International Law by Domestic and International Courts, Compendium of Court Decisions, International Training Centre, International Labour Organisation, 2013 at page 167. I therefore find and hold that Claimant is entitled to half of his salary for the month of September and October 2010 as claimed. Claimant also claimed his full salary for the months of November 2010 - =N=1,572,057.00 and December, 2010 - =N=1,572,057.00 and pro-rated salary for the month of January, 2011in the sum of =N=253,557.60. There appears to be no dispute regarding this head of claim save in relation to whether the applicable figure is actual salary or net salary. In paragraph 22(a) of its Statement of Defence and Counter claim admitted it was ready to pay Claimant all these subject to Claimant returning its property in his custody. The position of the law is that facts admitted need no further proof. See Ehinlawo v. Oke (2008)6-7 S.C. (Pt. 11)123. I thus find and hold that Claimant is entitled to his full salary for the month of November and December, 2010 and pro-rated salary for January 2011. Claimant also claimed for Annual leave Allowance. Claimant's appointment was effective from 1/4/10. This Court has held that his appointment was by a letter of demotion dated 4/1/11 terminated by a repudiatory breach of the fundamental terms of the contract. It is a matter of common knowledge that annual leave and/or annual leave allowance is available only to employees who have worked with their employers for a minimum of one year. Claimant worked with the 1st Defendant for 9 months, see Exh. C1. I find and hold that he is not entitled to annual leave allowance as sought. The last head of claim is for a month salary in lieu of notice of termination. By Exh. C1, either party may, during the period of probation serve one month notice or pay one month basic salary in lieu of notice. There is no evidence before me that Claimant was a confirmed staff of the 1st Defendant. Requisite notice not having been given, l find and hold that Claimant is entitled to be paid one month basic salary in lieu of notice. On claim for interest the award of interest in Nigeria is still governed by the common law principle and practice. See Ekwunife v. Wayne (West Africa) Limited (1989)5 NWLR (Pt. 122) 422 at 448 and see also Jallco Ltd & Anor. v. Owoniboys Technical Services Ltd (1995) LPELR-1591 (SC). The amount due to the Claimant from the 1st Defendant under this judgment is a debt owed by the latter to the former. The position of the law is that monetary judgment attracts appropriate interest even where none is claimed, see Diamond Bank Ltd v. PIC Ltd (2009)18 NWLR (Pt. 1172) 67 at p. 97. In addition to this, the Rules of this Court in Order 21 Rule 4 states that: 'The Court at the time of delivering the judgment or making the order, may direct the time within which payment is to be made or other act is to be done and may order interest at a rate not less than 10 per cent per annum to be paid upon any judgment'. It is therefore ordered that the Defendant shall pay 15% interest on the entire judgment sum from 1/2/11until final liquidation. Claimant has claimed =N=10,000,000.00 as damages against the 1st Defendant. However there is no proof of this claim before the Court. The position of the law is that averments in pleadings must be proved by credible and admissible evidence otherwise they remain mere assertions. Thus not having led credible evidence in proof of same the claim for damages is refused. In much the same vein, the claim for cost of this action is not supported by evidence. Indeed no specific amount is claimed under this head. Of a truth, Claimant instituted this action retaining the services of a Legal Practitioner. There is however no proof of how much was paid if any at all. That being the case, the Court is faced with the exercise of its discretion one way or the other. However since cost ordinarily follows event the sum of One Hundred Thousand Naira is here awarded as the cost of this action. The third issue for determination is whether 1st defendant has proved its counter claim to be entitled to same. The first item under counter claim is for the sum of =N=499,950.00 being the one month's basic salary in lieu of the notice which the claimant ought to have given the 1st Defendant in consequence of his unilateral termination of his employment. I have determined and pronounced under issue 1 that the 1st Defendant was the one who indeed through repudiatory breach of the fundamental terms of the contract of employment terminated the employment of the Claimant. That finding and holding represents the position of the law. Thus this head of counter claim fails and it is refused accordingly. The second item of counter claim is for an order directing the Claimant to return to the 1st Defendant forthwith One Laptop Computer with the 1st Defendant's information stored on it intact; One Blackberry Phone and Identity Card. 1st Defendant did not lead any evidence as to the nature of information allegedly stored in the Laptop computer. There is also no evidence adduced regarding issue of an Identity Card. Claimant on the other hand had averred that he was willing to surrender all the properties of the 1st Defendant in his custody to the 1st Defendant albeit without any information stored on the Laptop. Having so admitted it is therefore ordered that Claimant shall return to the 1st Defendant the following items- (a) Laptop Computer only (without stored information evidence not having been led as regards the nature of such information); (b) Blackberry phone and (c) Identity Card. Finally and for the avoidance of doubt, 1. It is here declared that the 1st defendant's letter of demotion dated 4/1/11 is a breach of the Claimant's contract of employment, wrongful and tantamount to an unlawful termination thereof; 2. The 1st Defendant shall pay to the Claimant (a). the sum of =N=750,000.00 being Claimant's half salary for the month of September, 2010; (b). the sum of =N=750,000.00 being Claimant's half salary for the month of October, 2010; (c) the sum of =N=1,500,000.00 being the Claimant's salary for the month of November, 2010; (c). the sum of =N=1,500,000.00 being the Claimant's salary for the month of December, 2010; (d). the sum of =N=253,557.00 being the pro-rated salary for the month of January, 2011; (e). the sum of =N=499,950.00 being the one month's basic salary in lieu of the notice which the Claimant was entitled in consequence of the unilateral termination of his employment by the 1st Defendant. 3. The Defendant shall pay 15% interest on the entire judgment sum from 1/2/11 until final liquidation. 4. Cost of this action is assessed at One Hundred Thousand Naira (=N=100,000.00) only. 5. Claimant shall return to the 1st Defendant the following items- (a). Laptop Computer only (without stored information evidence not having been led as regards the nature of such information); (b). Blackberry phone and (c). Identity Card. All judgment sums due under and by virtue of this judgment shall be paid to the Claimant within 14 days of this Judgment. All property due to be returned to the 1st Defendant shall also be returned within 14 days of this judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. ____________________ Hon. Justice J.D. Peters Presiding Judge