Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA IN THE LAGOS JUDICIAL DIVISION HOLDEN AT LAGOS BEFORE HIS LORDSHIP HON. JUSTICE B. B. KANYIP DATE: FEBRUARY 2, 2014 SUIT NO. NICN/LA/427/2012 BETWEEN Mr. Godwin Agbone - Claimant AND Nulec Industries Ltd - Defendant REPRESENTATION Alexander Ishogba, for the claimant. Seyi Soremekun, and with him is Miss Yemisi Bolarinwa, for the defendant. JUDGMENT The claimant took up a complaint dated and filed on 17th August 2012 and claims against the defendant the following reliefs – 1. The sum of N111,020 (One Hundred and Eleven Thousand, Twenty Naira) being the outstanding and unpaid salary for the months of September 2010 and August 2011. 2. The sum of N2,276,843.87k (Two Million, Two Hundred and Seventy-Six Thousand, Eight Hundred and Forty-Three Naira, Eighty-Seven Kobo) being the final entitlement/terminal benefit of the claimant as computed by the defendant’s Acting Managing Director. 3. Interest on the said sum listed in (1) and (2) above at the rate of 10% per annum the date both sums accrued until judgment is delivered, and thereafter interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 5% per annum until the entire sum is liquidated. 4. The sum of N2,000,000 (Two Million Naira) as general damages. 5. The sum of N500,000 (Five Hundred Thousand) as cost of litigation. Accompanying the complaint are the statement of facts, claimant’s statement on oath, list of witness, list of documents and copies of the documents. In reaction, the defendant entered appearance by filing its memorandum of appearance. Thereafter, it filed its statement of defence and counterclaim, written statement on oath, list of witness, list of documents and copies of the documents. By the counterclaim, the defendant is claiming for the sum of N19,630,493.33 (Nineteen Million, Six Hundred and Thirty Thousand, Four Hundred and Ninety-Three Naira, Thirty-Three Kobo) as well as interest on the above stated sum at the rate of 21% per annum from 17th August 2012 till judgment and thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till full liquidation. The claimant then filed a reply and defence to counterclaim, claimant’s further statement on oath, list of additional documents and copies of the additional documents. At the trial, the claimant testified on his behalf as CW, while Ramesh Subramanian who works as Project Director for the defendant testified on behalf of the defendant as DW. At the close of trial, parties were asked to file and serve their respective written addresses starting with the defendant as per Order 19 Rule 13 of the National Industrial Court (NIC) Rules 2007. This they did. The defendant’s final written address is dated 23rd June 2014 but filed on 24th June 2014. That of the claimant is dated and filed on 20th June 2014. The defendant filed a reply on points of law dated 4th July 2014 but filed on 7th July 2014. The case of the claimant is that he was employed by the defendant as a sales representative and he worked for the defendant dutifully for 18 years until his voluntary resignation in August 2010. That the defendant pleaded with him to continue to work and he agreed and so worked for the defendant as an ad hoc staff/independent contractor from September 2010 to August 2011. Within this period, however, that the defendant paid him his salary except for the months of September 2010 and August 2011. Also that the Managing Director, Mr. Vashi Davjani, computed his terminal benefits which he put at N3,196,369 (Exhibit C) but this computation was later cleverly withdrawn and another (Exhibit D) was substituted for it. Aside from this, that failure of the defendant to pay him his entitlements have resulted in him and his family suffering, for which he claims general damages. It is for all of these claims that the claimant filed the instant action. The case of the defendant is that the claimant was its former employee, having been employed by the defendant on 28th April 1998 via an offer letter with Reference No 8804/AS which the claimant accepted by appending his signature thereto. That the claimant was in its service for a period of 18 years before his voluntary resignation from service on 20th August 2010, when the defendant was going through some managerial restructuring. Subsequently, the claimant approached the defendant with a proposition that he should be re-engaged by the defendant, a proposition which the defendant initially refused. The claimant was, however, re-engaged in October 2010 as an independent contractor on terms that the claimant would only be entitled to collect monthly fees for work done. That the claimant’s services as an independent contractor terminated in July 2011. That the claimant then began to make frivolous claims in respect of gratuity benefits and other fees against the defendant and occasionally wrote letters through his counsel threatening to report the defendants to the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) if his alleged claims for his gratuity benefits were not paid. That it is for this that the claimant filed the instant suit seeking the reliefs he claims for which the defendant is contesting. It is also the case of the defendant that the claimant breached his covenant of confidentiality with the defendant, which led to enormous damage to the defendant’s reputation. The defendant framed two issues for the determination of the Court, namely – 1. Whether the claimant has been able to prove by the evidence before this Court that he is entitled to the reliefs set out in the statement of facts. 2. Whether the defendant/counterclaimant has proved its counterclaim. Regarding issue 1, the defendant contended that the gravamen of the claimant’s claims is the claim for gratuity benefit for the period of his service with the defendant based on his contract of employment with the defendant. That in the determination of a dispute between an employer and an employee, the Court will interpret the contract between parties only and no more, citing SS Company v. Afropack (Nig.) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 77 at 82. To the defendant, the claimant in his written statement on oath deposed to the fact that he was an employee of the defendant for a period of time and having so worked is entitled to gratuity benefits and same should have been computed in accordance with his contract of employment, which is two months’ salary multiplied by the number of years of service. That the claimant in support of his assertions tendered Exhibit C, a document which the claimant claimed was issued by one Vashi and testified that it was the practice of the defendant to use two months’ salary multiplied by the years of service to compute gratuity benefits of its employee. That the claimant did not tender before this Court any contract of employment between himself and the defendant which clearly shows two months’ salary multiplied by the years of service as basis for computation of the gratuity benefits. It is, therefore, the submission of the defendant that Exhibit C should be disregarded and discountenanced. That the claimant has been unable to establish that the said document originated from the defendant and to establish before this Court the nexus between the purported document and the defendant. That the only assertion made by the claimant was that one Mr. Vashi issued the document and this was vehemently denied by the defendant in its evidence. In the alternative, the defendant invited the Court to examine the said Exhibit C, the document upon which the claimant’s computation of his gratuity claims is based. That the document is an unsigned document. That neither the said Mr. Vashi, the alleged issuer, signed the document nor the claimant who allegedly received it acknowledged receipt of same. To the defendant, an unsigned document is a worthless document and reliance should not be placed on it arriving at a decision in any Court of law, referring to Nasiru Garba Dantiye v. Ibrahim Yushua’u Kanya [2009] 4 NWLR (Pt. 1130) 13 at 16 where the Court held that “an unsigned or irregularly signed document is worthless and entitled to ascription of no weight at all. Such document binds no one”. Furthermore, that the defendant tendered in its defence/counterclaim a copy of the claimant’s offer letter of appointment and the defendant’s policy document (Exhibits DW1 and DW3); both documents were issued by the defendant. These documents are the contract between the parties and no more. That at page 9 of Exhibit DW3 it is provided under the paragraph headed “End of Service” that “the company will pay the following compensations under normal condition of end of service (i) one month gross pay times the number of completed years of service as compensation/gratuity”. It is the submission of the defendant this provision of the contract is the “only contract” between the parties in respect of the computation/terms of determining the gratuity payable to the claimant, relying on SS Company v. Afropack (Nig.) Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 77 at 82. The defendant went on that the claimant tendered Exhibit M, which he alleged is page 15 of the company’s Employment Policy Handbook and testified that Exhibit DW3 was a reprinted Conditions of Employment. To the defendant, regarding Exhibit M, apart from the obvious defects of it been unsigned, there is no evidence that such document was issued by defendant to the claimant. That the document is clearly and obviously an incomplete document. That the question is why the claimant failed to provide other pages of the document. It is the submission of the defendant that this Court ought to presume that the other parts of the document are adverse to the case of the claimant, relying on section 167(d) of the Evidence Act 2011 and Chinekwe v. Chinekwe [2010] 12 NWLR (Pt. 1208) 226 at 242 – 243. Furthermore, that he who alleges a fact must prove the existence of same, citing section 131 of the Evidence Act 2011 and Vanguard Media Ltd v. Olafisoye [2011] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1267) 207 at 222. The defendant continued that the claimant did not frontload the purported Company Policy Handbook to which Exhibit M was a part of, neither did the claimant through cross-examination of the defendant’s witness controvert the assertion of the defendant that only one month salary scale was the standard computation applied by the company. That it is trite that evidence uncontroverted and uncontradicted is deemed admitted, referring to Magaji v. Nigerian Army [2008] 8 NWLR (Pt. 1089) 339 at 393. The defendant accordingly submitted that it is not the duty of the Court to re-write the contract between parties (as in this case, the gratuity benefit as contained in the claimant’s statement of facts) but to enforce same. That it is, therefore, clearly evident that the claimant’s gratuity claim is not based on the contract between the parties. The defendant went on that the claimant also claims outstanding and unpaid salaries for the months of September 2010 and August 2011 respectively. The defendant on the other hand pleaded in various paragraphs of the statement of defence and witness statement on oath that the claimant was adequately paid for the entire duration which he worked. That the claimant has been unable to provide evidence before this Court for the period he worked, that his salaries are outstanding. The defendant then urged the Court to discountenance the claimant’s claims for salary arrears. In respect of the defendant’s counterclaim, the defendant is claiming the sum of Twenty Million Naira (N20,000,000.00), being damages for the breach of contract by the claimant, which has caused the defendant huge economic losses on account of the claimant’s removal of the defendant’s vital documents. The defendant tendered letters written by the claimant’s solicitors to blackmail the defendant in the event that the gratuity payments are not paid. To the defendant, the inference, after examining Exhibits DW5 and DW6, is that the claimant has breached clause 19(1) of the conditions of service (Exhibit DW3). That the claimant also tendered Exhibits DW5 and DW6 (which were admitted as Exhibits E1 and E2). That if the Court finds that the claimant’s activities as evident in Exhibits DW5 and DW6 and paragraphs 17 and 18 of the defendant’s witness statement on oath constitutes a breach of the terms of employment, this Court is urged to hold that the defendant/counterclaimant is entitled to damages for the breach, relying on Eagle Super Pack (Nig.) Ltd v. ACB Plc [2006] 19 NWLR (Pt. 1013) 20 at 28 where it was held that – In the consideration of the claim for, as well as in the consideration of an award in consequence of, a breach of contract, the measure of damage is the loss flowing naturally from the breach and incurred in the direct consequence of the violation. The defendant then submitted that the claimant is not entitled to any relief as he has breached his contract of employment with the defendant by exposing the defendant to economic loss on account of the confidential information which the claimant disclosed in an attempt to blackmail the defendant to pay fictitious gratuity, citing Vinz Intl (Nig.) Ltd v. Morohundiya [2009] 11 NWLR (Pt. 1153) 562 at 569 – 570, where it was held that “a party in breach of contract is not entitled to any relief because there is no relief for breaker of contract”. In conclusion, the defendant urged the Court to dismiss the claims of the claimant as they are frivolous and misconceived, and grant the reliefs sought by the defendant in its counterclaim. The claimant in reaction framed only one issue for the determination of the Court, namely: whether or not the claimant has proved his case to entitle him to the claims sought therein. To the claimant, in proof of his claims, he first pleaded in paragraphs 9.15 and 16 of the statement of claim the particulars of the special damages. That he also adduced evidence in proof of each particular of special damages. Specifically, he tendered Exhibit C which was the computation sheet duly computed by the defendant’s acting Managing Director. Similarly, he tendered Exhibits L1 and L2 which are copies of the defendant’s vouchers issued to him to run errands for the months of September 2010 and August 2011 but whose services were never remunerated by the defendant. That the averment in respect of these claims and the evidence led in support thereof by the claimant were neither denied nor contradicted by defendant. Indeed, that the defendant failed and/or refused to cross-examine the claimant’s witness when called upon to do so. The claimant then referred the Court to Arabambi v. Advance Beverages Industries Ltd [2005] 19 NWLR (Pt. 959) 1 at 36 – 37, where the Supreme Court held that where evidence in support of special damages is unchallenged or uncontradicted, the Court ought to uphold same. To the claimant, it is pertinent to state that the finding in this case was made where receipt or invoice was not tendered. That in the instant case, the claimant tendered Exhibits C1, L1 and L2 which are computation sheet and vouchers issued to the claimant for the aforesaid months, evidencing the sums and for the purpose thereon. That these exhibits were not challenged in any way, urging the Court to rely on them. The claimant went on that he also claimed the sum of N2,000,000 as general damages as well as N500,000 as cost of this action. That in paragraph 19 of the statement of claim as well as paragraphs 10 and 11 of the claimant’s witness further statement on oath, he averred that the refusal of the defendant to pay him his two months outstanding salaries and terminal benefits were causing him and his family severe hardship and embarrassment. That he testified, for instance, that due to the defendant’s act he could no longer meet his financial obligations to his family by paying his accommodation rent and paying his children school fees. Consequently, he tendered Exhibits N, O1 and O2 to buttress his claims. That there is nowhere in the statement of defence that the above claims were remotely doubted, much less denied. Indeed that the only time defendant made feeble attempt to deny the above claims were in paragraphs 8, 10 and 11 as well as some other paragraphs of the statement of defence but failed to substantiate its denials by tendering exhibits in rebuttal of the claimant’s assertion or leading credible evidence to show the contrary. The claimant continued that as a matter of fact, Exhibit DW3 tendered by the defendant’s witness to show that the company handbook was its basis for the computation of the claimant’s entitlement, cannot be relied upon by the Court as there was nowhere in Exhibit DW3 that the claimant accepted to be bound by it. Clearly, that Exhibit M tendered by the claimant and identified by the defendant’s witness as the last page of Exhibit DW3 was not executed or signed by the claimant. That in a desperate move to justify its assertion/denial in paragraphs 13, 14 and 15 of the statement defence, the defendant’s witness tendered Exhibit DW4, which was a cash voucher used in paying the claimant’s salary for the month of March 2011. To demonstrate the craftiness and dubiousness of the defendant, it deliberate inserted in the voucher after the claimant signature the following words, “towards entitlement”, without the knowledge and consent of the claimant. The claimant went on that as rightly observed by the Court, the defendant failed to adduce credible evidence to show how salary payment for the month of March 2011 amounts to payment against entitlement without exhibiting separate document to that effect. The claimant then submitted that what is not denied is deemed admitted, and requires no further proof, citing Balogun v. EOCB (Nig) Ltd [2007] 5 NWLR (Pt. 1028) 584 at 600. To the claimant, in the light of the established facts that he was in the service of the defendant in September 2010 and August 2011 but was not paid his salaries for those months, and that the defendant failed and or refused to pay his entitlement as contained in Exhibit C prepared by the defendant, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the claimant is entitled to the claims. “Similarly, that in the high of the establishment facts that the defendant failure and or refusal to pay the claimant’s all his entitlement as at when due which led to the claimant’s children being sent away from school and which led to the defendant being served with quit notice as shown in the unchallenged averments and Exhibits N, O1 and O2, the claimant again urged the Court to award general damages to the claimant in the sum claimed”. That the meaning and principles guiding the award of general damages are enunciated by the Supreme Court in Iyere v. BFFM Ltd [2008] 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 300 at 346 where Mohammed, JSC held thus – Damages has been defined to mean a sum of money awarded to a person injured by the tort of another person. It is in general that pecuniary compensation which the law awards to a person for the injury he has sustained by reason of the act or default of another whether that act or default is a breach of contract or tort. That elucidating further, Mohammed, JSC adopted with approval the dictum of Field, J in Philips v. London South West Railway Co. Ltd (1879) 4 QBD 406 at 408 thus – The damages to which a man is entitled are the consequences of a wrongful act by which he suffer. That Sanusi, JCA put the matter more elaborately in Unipetrol Nigeria Plc v. Adireje WA Ltd [2005] 14 NWLR (Pt. 946) 563 at 632 – 633 as follows – General damages are such that the law will presume to be direct, natural, and probable results of the acts complained of. It need not be proved strictly unlike special damages. There is no parameter or yardstick for a court to use in awarding general damages except of course the presumption of ordinary expectation of a reasonable man…let me emphasize here that it is not unusual or abnormal for a trial court to award general damages if where it awarded special damages in as much as there is the slightest evidence showing that the party so claiming suffered some damages. In the present case, that the claimant led evidence to show that his children were sent home from school on account of non-payment of school fess. He also led evidence to show that the landlord of the property where he resides issued him with a quit notice and a notice of the owner’s intention to recover premises upon which he was thrown out of the property. Certainly, that this development not only has caused the claimant severe hardship in the family respect, it has also hampered his ability to do business in other to sustain himself and his family. That there is no amount of money which can adequately compensate the claimant because, for all purposes, he would prefer in 2011 the payment of his salaries and entitlement to the sum of which he now seeks in damages for they represent the reward of his labour. However, that given the situation, the Court must compensate him with within reasonable bounds “in consequence of the wrongful acts by which he now suffers”. The claimant then drew the attention of the Court to the fact that he did put in over 18 years of his entire life into the service of the defendant. That these are rare and momentous period in his life just as they represent the epochal times in the claimant’s career. Therefore, the claimant urged the Court to hold that this is a definitive and appropriate case where general damages ought to be awarded and to accordingly award the sum of N2,000,000 to the claimant. In conclusion, the claimant urged the Court to hold that the defendant is liable for the claimant’s suffering on account of its willful refusal to pay the claimant’s outstanding salaries and entitlement as and when due, and that the claimant is entitled to the reliefs sought herein and to accordingly grant the reliefs. The defendant supposedly reacted on points of law and ended up rearguing its case as originally done in the final written address. The only point the defendant succeeded in making is reiterating that the claimant did not succeed in proving his case; and arguing in the process that the claimant’s case can only succeed on the strength of the claimant’s case, not on the weakness of the defendant’s defence. Here, the defendant referred the Court to WAEC v. Oshionebo [2006] 12 NWLR (Pt. 994) 258 at 278 and Harka Air Services Ltd v. Keazor [2006] 1 NWLR (Pt. 960) 160 at 187. The defendant then proceeded to remind the Court that the award of damages is at the discretion of the Court, a discretion that must be exercised judicially and judiciously, citing NPA v. Rahman Bros. Ltd [2010] 17 NWLR (Pt. 1221) 100 at 127 and Ogbiri v. NAOC [2010] 14 NWLR (Pt. 1213) 208 at 214. The defendant accordingly urged that the claimant’s case be dismissed and its counterclaim granted. I heard learned counsel and considered all the processes filed in this suit. The claimant’s claim is essentially for the payment of arrears of salary for the months of September 2010 and August 2011, and his final entitlement/retirement benefits. The claimant is also claiming for pre and post-judgment interest, general damages as well as cost of litigation. In considering the merit of the case, there is the need to resolve the admissibility and hence evidential value of Exhibits C, D, F(1) and M. Exhibit C is a document dated 7th September 2010 supposedly prepared by Vashi, approved by Vashi and dealing with the calculation of the amount of full and final entitlement of the claimant. It puts the total amount payable at 3,196,369. It is from this figure that the claimant deducted his indebtedness to the defendant before arriving at the sum of N2,276,843.87, the sum he claims as relief 2. Exhibit C is, however, not signed by the person who ‘prepared’ and ‘approved’ it. On this ground, the defendant objected to the admissibility of Exhibit C, citing Nasiru Garba Dantiye v. Ibrahim Yushua’u Kanya (supra), which held that an unsigned or irregularly signed document is worthless and so has no weight at all. The earlier case of Edilco (Nig.) Ltd v. UBA Plc [2000] FWLR (Pt. 21) 729 also held that an unsigned but certified true copy of a document will not be conferred with any evidential value. See further, Esther Ogbodu v. Global Fleet Oil & Gas Ltd & anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/32/2012, the judgment of which was delivered on 5th December 2014 and Aghata N. Onuorah v. Access Bank Plc unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/30/2011 the judgment of which was delivered on December 15, 2014, where this Court declined to give any evidential value to a number of unsigned documents. Given these authorities, therefore, Exhibit C has no evidential value for purposes of this judgment; and I so find and hold. Given that Exhibit C has no evidential value, the claim for N2,276,843.87 as per relief 2 must accordingly fail since that relief is hinged on Exhibit C; and I so find and hold. Relief 2 is accordingly dismissed. Exhibit D is simply a document that has the particulars of the claimant and his employment. In paragraph 12 of the claimant’s sworn deposition, the claimant described Exhibit D as the document which the defendant cleverly used to replace Exhibit C when a new calculation of his terminal benefits was made. Exhibit D in that regard put the claimant as indebted to the defendant to the tune of N71,493.50. Once again, Exhibit D is not dated (Ogbahon v. Reg. Trustees CCGG [2001] FWLR (Pt. 80) 1496; [2002] NWLR (Pt. 749) 675 held an undated document to be invalid except proved by oral/parol evidence the date left out), is not signed by anyone and bears no nexus with the defendant. Nowhere on it can it be found anything linking it as originating from or written by the defendant. Exhibit D could as well have been written or drafted in a business centre. Exhibit D accordingly has no evidential value; and I so find and hold. It is hereby discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. Exhibit F1 is supposedly a petty cash voucher of the defendant indicating the payment of February 2011 salary of N55,451.20 as “requested by Godwin”. It is not dated and the columns reserved for the signatures of the authorizing officers are both blank. On the authority of Ogbahon v. Reg. Trustees CCGG, Exhibit F1 has no evidential value; and I so find and hold. In any event, it is curious that Exhibit F1, which is actually a petty cash voucher, is evidencing the payment of salary even when it is a notorious fact that salaries are in the main paid and evidenced vide pay-slips. Exhibit F1 is accordingly discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. Exhibit M is an acknowledgement page of a document, the full document of which was not frontloaded in Court. In paragraph 7 of the claimant’s further statement on oath, the claimant asserted that the defendant reprinted the conditions of service in order to reduce the computation scale from two months gross salary to one month gross salary. That this was vehemently rejected by the employees hence page 15 of the said handbook (Exhibit M) was not signed by the employees. Now the full document to which Exhibit M is the page 15 of was not frontloaded and hence tendered before this Court. It is the submission of the defendant that regarding Exhibit M, apart from the obvious defect of it been unsigned, there is no evidence that such document was issued by defendant to the claimant. In any case, that the document is clearly and obviously an incomplete document, asking in the process why the claimant failed to provide other pages of the document. In Medical and Health Workers Union of Nigeria & ors v. Federal Ministry of Health unreported Suit No. NICN/ABJ/238/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on July 22, 2013, this Court declined to ascribe any evidential value to documents frontloaded as annexes the full documents of which were not also frontloaded. The Court branded them as incomplete documents. In like manner, Exhibit M being an incomplete document cannot be ascribed any evidential value; and I so find and hold. In consequence, Exhibit M is hereby discountenanced for purposes of this judgment. Having already dismissed relief 2, I now proceed to relief 1, which is for “the sum of N111,020 (One Hundred and Eleven Thousand, Twenty Naira) being the outstanding and unpaid salary for the months of September 2010 and August 2011”. By this relief, the claimant is saying that he was not paid salary for the months of September 2010 and August 2011; this much the claimant said in paragraph 5 of his further statement on oath. The argument of the defendant is that the claimant had resigned as its employee but was reengaged as an independent contractor, a position for which the claimant was not paid (and so cannot claim) a salary. In paragraphs 1 – 4 and 9 of his further statement on oath, the claimant acknowledged that he retired from the defendant voluntarily, was reengaged as an independent contractor and was paid a monthly salary of N55,510; and that the period that the independent contractor arrangement lasted was 12 months. This appears to be contrary to paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the claimant’s statement on oath where he described himself during this period as “an ad hoc staff” of the defendant. As evidence for this arrangement, the claimant referred to Exhibits L(1) and L(2), petty cash vouchers showing payments for transportation to run errands by the claimant for the defendant. Incidentally, the claimant in paragraph 4 of his further statement on oath labeled these petty cash vouchers as internal memos. With the acknowledgement of the claimant he was actually reengaged as an independent contractor, the question is whether he was thereby paid a salary. The evidence before the Court that the claimant was paid salary for this period is Exhibits F(1) and F(2). I have already discountenanced Exhibit F(1) for not being dated and for the columns reserved for the signatures of the authorizing officers being blank. Exhibit F(2), on the other hand, is also a petty cash voucher indicating the payment of salary of N55,451.20, this time for the month of March “as at 31/3/2011”. Exhibit F(2) is dated 31/03/2011 and one column for authorization is signed; but there is superimposed the words “Towards entitlements”. The thing to note from Exhibit F(2), aside from the superimposition, is that it puts the claimant’s salary at N55,451.20. In paragraph 3 of his further statement on oath, the claimant put his monthly salary during the period of his being an independent contractor at N55,510, a figure different from that in the exhibits he tendered. Even aside for all this, there is the issue whether as an independent contractor the claimant comes within the jurisdictional competence of this Court. Shena Security Co. Ltd v. Afropak (Nig.) Ltd & ors [2008] 4 – 5 SC (Pt. II) 117 at pages 128 – 130 laid down a number of factors that Courts are to consider when determining whether a relationship is one of a contract of service or that of a contract for service. One of the factors is that if payments are made by way of “wages” or “salaries” this is indicative that the contract is one of service. If it is a contract for service, the independent contractor gets his payment by way of “fees”. In like manner, where payment is by way of commission only or on the completion of the job, that indicates that the contract is for service. In the instant case, the defendant’s argument is that the claimant was not paid a salary but was merely reimbursed for expenses incurred. The petty cash vouchers tendered as per Exhibits G, L(1) and L(2) all attest to this. The worrying this here, and I noted it earlier, is that Exhibits F(2) and H (Exhibit H is supposedly payment for Christmas Bonus for 2010) as evidence of salary payment are all petty cash vouchers. I had indicated earlier that it is curious that payment of salary is being evidenced here by petty cash vouchers instead of pay-slips. I do not really think that in the circumstance of this case the arrangement of the parties was that the claimant would be paid a salary in his capacity as an independent contractor. That salary was being paid vide petty cash vouchers raises serious doubts as to the veracity of an entitlement to salary in the first place. Even aside from this, in Mr. Henry Adoh v. EMC Communications Infrastructure Limited unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/548/2013 the ruling of which was delivered on December 17, 2014, this Court held that it does not have jurisdiction over the claims of an independent contractor. The claimant acknowledged that he was an independent contractor. His claims accordingly are outside of the jurisdictional mandate of this Court. The claim for relief 1 must fail. It is accordingly dismissed. Relief 3 is for “interest on the said sum listed in (1) and (2) above at the rate of 10% per annum the date both sums accrued until judgment is delivered, and thereafter interest on the judgment sum at the rate of 5% per annum until the entire sum is liquidated”. Since this relief is tied to reliefs 1 and 2, which have been dismissed, it means that relief 3 too must accordingly fail. It is thereby dismissed. This leaves out the claims for general damages and cost. In relief 4, the claimant claimed for N2,000,000 as general damages and in relief 5 claimed for N500,000 as cost of this action. The case of the claimant is that in paragraph 19 of the statement of claim as well as paragraphs 10 and 11 of his further statement on oath, he averred that the refusal of the defendant to pay him his two months outstanding salaries and terminal benefits were causing him and his family severe hardship and embarrassment. That he testified, for instance, that due to the defendant’s act he could no longer meet his financial obligations to his family by paying his accommodation rent and paying his children school fees. Consequently, he tendered Exhibits N, O1 and O2 to buttress his claims. The claimant continued in a rather incomprehensible manner to submit in paragraph 3.15 of his written address that “similarly, in the high of the establishment facts that the defendant failure and or refusal to pay the claimant’s all his entitlement as at when due which led to the claimant’s children being sent away from school and which led to the defendant being served with quit notice as shown in the unchallenged averments and Exhibits N, O1 and O2, the claimant again urged the Court to award general damages to the claimant in the sum claimed”. Furthermore, in paragraph 3.1 of his written address, the claimant contended that in the present case, he led evidence to show that his children were sent home from school on account of non-payment of school fess. He also led evidence to show that the landlord of the property where he resides issued him with a quit notice and a notice of the owner’s intention to recover premises upon which he was thrown out of the property. Certainly, that this development not only has caused the claimant severe hardship in the family respect, it has also hampered his ability to do business in other to sustain himself and his family The question that arises from all of this is whether in an employment suit an employee can make the kind of claims that the claimant is making here. In Agbo v. CBN [1996] 10 NWLR (Pt. 478) 370 CA, it was held that the servant cannot rely on wrongful termination of appointment as cause of action to clear his name for the future, among other purposes. His recourse in an appropriate case may be in defamation. Also in Baba v. Nigerian Civil Aviation Training Centre [1986] 5 NWLR (Pt. 42) 514 CA, it was held that no compensation can be claimed in respect of injury done to the servant’s feelings by his dismissal nor in respect of difficulty in finding an alternative work. In Esther Ogbodu v. Global Fleet Oil & Gas Ltd and anor unreported Suit No. NICN/LA/32/2012 the judgment of which was delivered on December 5, 2014, this Court rejected a claim for loss of employment. It should be noted that Western Nigeria Development Corporation v. Jimoh Abimbola [1966] NMLR 381 and NAB Ltd v. Shuaibu, which relied on the House of Lords decision in Addis v. Gramophone Co. [1909] AC 488, held that where a servant is wrongfully dismissed from his employment the damages for the dismissal cannot include compensation for the manner of the dismissal for his injured feelings or the loss he may sustain from the fact that the dismissal in itself makes it more difficult for him to obtain fresh employment. See also The International Drilling Company Nigeria Ltd v. Ajijala [1975] All NLR 117. I do not, therefore, think that the basis for relief 4 claimed by the claimant is appropriate. Relief 4 accordingly fails and so is dismissed. As for the claim for N500,000 as cost of litigation, the claimant did not show to the Court how he came about this figure as cost. In any case, by Guinness (Nig.) Plc v. Nwoke [2000] 12 NWLR (Pt. 689) 135 at 150 it is unethical and an affront to public policy to pass on the burden of solicitor’s fees to the opposing party. The claim for cost of litigation accordingly fails and so is dismissed. On the whole, I do not think that the claimant proved his case. This case is accordingly dismissed. Judgment is entered accordingly. I make no order as to cost. …………………………………… Hon. Justice B. B. Kanyip