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: MARCH 19, 2015 SUIT NO: NICN/LA/545/2012 BETWEEN Miss Adelegan Elizabeth Folashade - Claimant AND 1. Wap Terminals Solutions Ltd 2. Mr. James Umusu - Defendants REPRESENTATION I. M. Keshinro for the Claimant. D. O. Odde for the Defendant. JUDGMENT The Claimant’s claims as endorsed on her General Form of Compliant filed on 30/10/12 against the Defendants are for - 1. An Order of this Honourable Court declaring the termination of the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant Company by the 2nd Defendant as unlawful, wrongful and against the agreed term of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant Company (evidenced by the 1st Defendant Company’s pleaded offer of employment, which became effective on 7th December, 2011); 2. An Order of this Honourable Court declaring that the 1st Defendant Company and the 2nd Defendant (being the alter ego, Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director and the directing mind of the 1st Defendant Company) are indebted to the Claimant to the tune of N800,000.00k (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the total sum of the 8 months’ salary of N100,000.00k per month owed to the Claimant from 1st February, 2012 to September, 2012 when her employment was terminated; 3. An order of this Honourable Court declaring the non-payment of the Claimant’s 8 months’ salary of N800,000.00k (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) even after the unlawful termination of her employment with the 1st Defendant Company, as unlawful. 4. The sum of N800,000.00k (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the value of the salaries/emoluments owed to the Claimant by the Defendants from 1st February, 2012 to September 2012 when the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant Company was unlawfully terminated; 5. The sum of N50,000.00k (Fifty Thousand Naira) being the equivalent of the money due to the Claimant by the Defendants as “pay (being the Claimant’s two-week salary) in lieu of notice” before the Claimant’s employment was unlawfully terminated; 6. 21% interest on the sums stated in paragraphs (d) and (e) above from September 2012 (when the Claimant’s employment was unlawfully terminated) till the date of judgment and 7% interest from the date of judgment to the final settlement of the said sums; 7. The sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as general damages for the unlawful and wrongful termination of the Claimant’s employment by the Defendants and non- payment of the Claimant’s 8 months’ arrears of salaries/emoluments by the Defendants; and 8. The cost of this action in the sum of N200,000.00k being the concessionary fee agreed with the Claimant’s counsel. Trial commenced on 13th November 2013 when the testified in his case as CW1. Claimant was led in examination-in-chief and she adopted her Written Statement on Oath dated 30th October, 2012 and Additional Written Statement on Oath dated 8th March 2013 respectively whilst the Defendants cross-examined her on the same day. Claimant tendered 6 documents exhibits. They were admitted and marked as Exh.MA1 - Exh. MA6. At the proceeding of 20th May, 2014, the Defendants opened their defence by leading their only witness, DW1 in evidence. DW1 adopted his Written Statement on Oath dated 22nd April, 2014, and urged the Court to dismiss the case of the Claimant. The Claimant did not cross-examine the witness and the Defendants closed their case accordingly. The Claimant’s claims are distilled from her General Form of Complaint and Statement of Facts dated 30th October, 2012 and Claimant’s Reply to Defendants’ Statement of Defence dated 7th March, 2013, particularly the Claimant’s Witness Statement on Oath dated 30th October 2012, and Additional Witness Statement on Oath dated 8th March, 2013. The Claimant averred that she became an employee of the 1st Defendant Company by virtue of a letter of employment which was duly executed by the 2nd Defendant and became effective on 7th December, 2011; that the 2nd Defendant is the beneficial owner of major interests in 1st Defendant Company; that she was employed as a Human Resource Manager of the 1st Defendant Company on a monthly salary of N100,000.00 and the 2nd Defendant did pay her the said salaries for the months of December, 2011 and January, 2012 but refused, failed and neglected to pay her salaries for the months of February, 2012 to September, 2012; that she worked without pay for the Defendants between the periods commencing on 1st February, 2012 to 23rd September when her employment was wrongly terminated by the 2nd Defendant and that she had worked for a consecutive period of 10 months before her employment was wrongfully terminated by the 2nd Defendant. Claimant further averred that while in the employment of the 1st Defendant, even though she was employed as a Human Resource Manager, she was working majorly as a Field Officer managing operators at the mining and dredging sites of the 1st Defendant on the instruction of the 2nd Defendant; that she constantly ensured that monies generated are remitted as at when due into the Guarantee Trust Bank’s account of the 1st Defendant Company; that in fact she remitted monies into the GT Bank account of the 1st Defendant up till 14th September, 2012' that the 2nd Defendant, nonetheless, wrongfully terminated her employment via a telephone call put through to her on 23rd September, 2012 when he told her that he had terminated her employment and she must deem her salaries in arrears as being forfeited; that she tried all she could to have an audience with the 2nd Defendant so that her arrears of salaries could be paid but the 2nd Defendant instructed the gateman at his residence and the 1st Defendant’s company to deny her entry into the premises; that she thus instructed her Lawyers to assist her in getting the arrears of salaries and allowances due and unpaid by the 2nd Defendant; that her Lawyer did write a letter of demand on her behalf but the 2nd Defendant did not honour same and that she thus further instructed her lawyers to bring this action. Under cross examination, CW testified that since the termination of her employment by the Defendant she has not been employed; that she is aware that her letter of employment stated that it was for a probationary period of 6 months; that she was aware that it was subject to be confirmed on good conduct; that she was not aware of any letter terminating her employment with Defendant; that she was paid her monthly emolument of N100,000.00 up to the end of January 2012; that the 1st Defendant did not speak to her about her negligence, misapplication of Company’s fund, mismanagement and gross dereliction of duties; that she did not on her volition employ anybody to assist her in carrying out her duties; that she did not admit to a report of making dwindling returns to her employer and that the Defendants did not call her or make an offer of paying her N5,000.00 daily. On 20/5/14, the Defendant opened its case and called one James Umusu as its lone witness. Witness adopted his witness statement on oath dated 22/4/14 as his evidence in chief. He was not cross examined and the matter was adjourned for learned Counsel to file their final written addresses for adoption. The Defendant's final written address was filed on 1/7/14. In it learned Counsel set down two main issues for determination as follows - 1. Whether the 2nd Defendant's name ought not be struck out of this suit 2. Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence to entitle her to the claims in this suit. On issue 1 learned Counsel urged the Court to resolve same in the affirmative. Counsel stated that by paragraph 4 of the Claimant's statement on oath, Claimant averred that the 2nd defendant was the alter ego, owner and Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer of the 1st Defendant. Counsel therefore submitted that the 2nd Defendant was an employee/agent of the 1st Defendant; that the Defendants filed 2 applications dated 25/2/13 and 21/4/14 contending that the 2nd Defendant ought not be joined as a party being an agent of the 1st Defendant and that his name should be struck out; that the said applications were not heard on merit and that the name of 2nd Defendant should be struck out of the suit. Counsel submitted that the 2nd Defendant was an agent of the 1st Defendant and that the law is settled that an agent who acts on behalf of a known and disclosed principal cannot incur any personal liability, citing Ataguba & Co. v. Gura Nigeria Limited (2005)8 NWLR (Pt. 927) 429 at 436 & Akalonu v. Omokaro (2003)8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 190 at 208. Learned Counsel submitted that there is no liability against the 2nd Defendant; that the Claimant did not claim the 2nd Defendant to be her employer and that even if the 2nd Defendant terminated the appointment of the Claimant, he did so as agent of the 1st Defendant. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Issue 2 is whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient and credible evidence to entitle her to the claims in this suit. On this learned Counsel submitted that Claimant was to signify her acceptance of the offer of employment on the duplicate copy of the letter of offer but that there is no evidence before the Court that Claimant complied with the terms of the letter of offer by signifying her acceptance as required; that Claimant failed to adduce any evidence at all on the questions of confirmation of her employment; that there is nothing wrongful or unlawful in the 1st Defendant terminating the employment of the Claimant whose employment was on probation and not confirmed and that there is no evidence at all to establish Claimant's claim that her employment was terminated in September 2012. With respect to the claim for =N=2 Million damages and =N=200,000 as cost of this action, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant has not made out any valid claim entitling her to damages. According to learned Counsel, damages are awarded to assuage such loss which flows naturally from the Defendant's act and are presumed by law to be direct and probable consequences of the act complained of, citing Yalaju-Amaye v. Associated Registered Engineering Contractors Limited (1990)4 NWLR (Pt. 145) 422 & Anike v. SPDC (2012)All FWLR (Pt. 638) 975 at 989. Counsel urged the Court to dismiss the claim for damages. On the cost of the action, learned Counsel referred to Exh. MA4 which is the contract between the Claimant and her Solicitors. According to learned Counsel, ''She engaged one without recourse to the defendants. The claimant had access to organizations that provide free legal services assuming she was compelled to engage a legal practitioner to enforce her right, if any''. Counsel further submitted that Exh. MA4 ought not have been admitted in the first place having been made during the time when proceedings were anticipated, citing Section 83(3) of the Evidence Act and Owie v. Ighiwi (2005)3 MJSC 82 at 116 and A.G Leventis v. Akpu (2007)9 NJSC 134 at 148. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance the said Exh. MA4 as the Defendants were not parties to the contract. Finally, learned Counsel urged the Court to hold that the Claimant failed to adduce credible evidence to support her claims before the Court. Claimant's final written address was dated and filed on 26/6/14. Learned Counsel set down the following 4 issues for determination - 1. Whether the Claimant was an employee of the 1st Defendant Company. 2. Whether the Claimant's employment was wrongfully or unlawfully terminated by the 2nd Defendant. 3. Whether the Defendant was indebted to the Claimant to the sum of =N=800,000.00 being the sum outstanding as salary and owed to the Claimant from February, 2012 to September 2012. 4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to damages. On issue 1, learned Counsel submitted, referring to Riverbend Country Club v. Patterson Tex. Civ. App., 399 S.W 2d 382 that an 'employee' is a person in the service of an employer under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral or written, where the employer has the power or right to control and direct the employee in the material details of how work is to be performed and that an 'employer' is one who employees the services of others; one for whom employees work and who pays their wages and salaries. Counsel also referred to Apena v. National Union of Printing and Paper Product (2003) NWLR (Pt. 822) 426 where the Court of Appeal stated that by virtue of the provisions of the Trade Disputes Act Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004, an employee is an individual who works under a contract of employment. Learned Counsel further submitted that an employment contract is an agreement or contract between employer and employee in which the terms and conditions of employment of the employee are provided. Counsel referred to Exh. MA1 - Claimant's contract of employment, and urged the Court to hold that the Claimant is an employee of the 1st Defendant. On issue 2, learned Counsel submitted, citing Ndili v. Akinsunmade (2010)8 NWLR (Pt. 668) 293 at 341 that the test of whether the dismissal of an employee is proper or unlawful is whether the procedure adopted in effecting the dismissal conforms to the conditions laid down in the terms of the employment of the aggrieved employee. Counsel referred to Exh. MA1 which states among others that - ''In event of resignation, we shall expect you to give a least 2 (two) weeks' notice or pay the equivalent amount to the company''. According to learned Counsel even if Exh. MA1 does not provide for the length of notice required before the Claimant's employment could be lawfully determined but that the Claimant ought to be given a reasonable notice by the Defendants, citing P.Z v. Ogedengbe (1972)3 S.C 98 at 100, Imoloade v. AWEC (1992)9 NWLR (Pt. 205)303 and Iloabachie v. Phillips (2002)12 NWLR (Pt. 787) 264 at 288. Counsel further referred to Section 11(1), (2)(b) & (3) of the Labour Act on what constitutes a reasonable notice. Learned Counsel referred to Exh. MA1 and submitted that the Claimant was entitled to 2 weeks notice as contained that exhibit or that in alternative entitled to one week notice. Counsel urged the Court to so hold. Issue 3 is whether the Defendants were indebted to the Claimant to the sum of =N=800,000 being the sum outstanding as salary and owed to the Claimant from February, 2012 to September 2012. Arguing this issue, learned Counsel submitted that the position of the law is that where there are arrears of salaries outstanding at the date of dismissal, such arrears shall be as debts against the employer and not as damages, citing Abdallah v Achou (1978) NCLR 226 & LUTH & M.B v. Adewole (1998)5 NWLR (Pt. 550) 406 at 422. Counsel referred to Exh. MA1 which states in part that the Claimant shall be entitled to the sum of =N=100,000. 00 per month and Exh. MA2 Claimant's GT Bank Account Statement and which showed that the 2nd Defendant made payment of =N=100,000 each month of December 2011 and January 2012 and that there was no evidence of payment of salaries for subsequent months of February to September 2012 before the Court. Counsel urged the Court to discountenance paragraph 4 of DW2 statement on oath dated 22/4/14 to the extent that it made passing of probationary period of six months as condition precedent to payment of =N=100,000.00 as monthly salary of the Claimant on the ground that no evidence was led in support of that averment. On issue 4, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant had led evidence to support her claim for wrongful dismissal and that the Claimant is entitled to =N=50,000.00 as damages being the sum due in lieu of 2 weeks' notice which the Defendant ought to have given to the Claimant. Counsel relied on Obot v. Central Bank of Nigeria (1993)9 SCNJ 368. With respect to the professional fees of the Claimant's Lawyer, learned Counsel submitted that the Claimant agreed to a concessionary rate of =N=200,000.00 as evidenced by Exh. MA3 and that that exhibit was not challenged both by pleadings and at trial. Counsel urged the Court to grant this claim. Counsel submitted further that the law is settled that a claim for special damages must be pleaded and strictly proved citing Daniel Holding Limited v. UBA Plc (2005)7 SC (Pt. 11) 18 at 22 & Oshinjinrin v. Elias (1970)1 All NLR 153 at 156. Counsel submitted that the Claimant did not just plead the fact that she agreed a concessionary rate of =N=200,000.00 with her Lawyers but that she also led evidence at trial by tendering Exh. MA3. Finally, learned Counsel argued respecting the claim of =N=2,000,000.00 as damages against the Defendants jointly and severally for breach of Exh. MA1 and that the Claimant is entitled to same whether or not actual injury or loss is proved. Counsel cited Nigerian Arab Bank Limited v. Shuaibu (1993)3 NWLR (Pt. 186)450. Counsel thus urged the Court to award the sum of =N=2,000,000.00 jointly and severally against the Defendants for the wrongful termination of the Claimant's contract of employment. Finally, Counsel urged the Court to grant all the prayers of the Claimant. I read all the processes filed in this case by learned Counsel on either side. I followed the proceedings of this case with attention from the commencement of same; listened with understanding to all the witnesses called at trial and keenly watched their demeanour while testifying and reviewed as well as evaluated all the documents tendered and admitted as exhibits in this case. Having done all this, I have come to narrow the issues for determination in this case to the following 2 issues - 1. Whether the 2nd Defendant's name ought not be struck out of this suit 2. Whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence to entitle her to the claims or any of them in this suit. On issue 1, it accords with commonsense apart from the position of the law that a party suing must be able to establish a nexus between him and the Defendant in order to sustain an action. Besides, in an action of this nature where a party is suing for wrongful termination of employment, the contract of service where there is one is the foundation upon which such a claim must be founded, See Angel Spinning and Dyeing Limited v. Ajah (2002)13 NWLR (Pt. 686) 532 & Fetuga v. University of Ibadan (2000)13 NWLR (Pt. 683) 118. A letter of appointment where there is also one serves the same purpose in the absence of a formal contract. The rationale being that the contract document or the letter of appointment ordinarily clearly states apart from the parties to the contractual relationship, the terms and conditions of the relationship. In the instant case, Exh. MA1 is the letter of offer of employment. It was undated but signed by one James Umusu as the Managing Director of the Defendant. The name of the 2nd Defendant was indicated on that exhibit neither was the 2nd Defendant named as a party to the contractual relationship being established by that document. I need to add that in all the documents tendered and admitted as exhibits by either side there was nowhere in which the name of the 2nd Defendant featured in any capacity or respect. In paragraph 3 of the Statement of Facts and paragraph 4 of the Claimant's written statement on oath, the Claimant had averred that - ''The 2nd Defendant is the alter ego, owner, Managing Director/Chief Executive Officer and the directing mind of the 1st Defendant Company and he makes all decisions on behalf of the 1st Defendant Company''. I find no proof of these assertions as the Claimant did not adduce any credible evidence in support of same. It is trite that averments in pleadings are not proof of the averments. Seemmmm. I find of a truth from the available evidence before me that the 2nd Defendant is the Managing Director of the 1st Defendant. I further find however that all the steps taken by him including signing Exh. MA1 - Offer of Employment was done as an agent of the 1st Defendant and hence, since acting on behalf of a known and disclosed principal 2nd Defendant cannot incur any personal liability for any of his act, see Akalomu v. Omokaro (2003)8 NWLR (Pt. 821) 190 at 208. I thus hold that the 2nd Defendant is not a proper party in this suit; that his name ought to be struck out of same and the name of the 2nd Defendant - Mr. James Umusu, is here struck out of this suit. Issue 2 is whether the Claimant has adduced sufficient credible evidence to be entitled to all or any of her claims. The first relief sought is for an order of court declaring the termination of the Claimant's employment with the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant as unlawful, wrongful and against the agreed terms of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant Company. The Claimant will succeed or fail on the basis of the terms and conditions of his employment as stated in the contract of service if any or letter of employment. See the Angel Spinningmmm. In the instant case Exh. MA1 is the letter of offer of employment. Paragraph 4 of the exhibit contained a provision that ''In event of resignation, we shall expect you to give at least 2(two weeks) notice or pay the equivalent amount to the company''. Unfortunately, there is no provision as to the length of notice to be given by the Company to terminate an employee's employment. However the law has never left a vaccum. Thus the position of the law has always been that in the circumstance as this, it is expected that the employer will give a reasonable notice, See Imoloame v. WAEC (1992)9 NWLR (Pt. 265) 303 . See also Section 11, Labour Act Cap. T14, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria, 2004. I am constrained to revert to Exh. MA1. By that exhibit, the Defendant considered 2 weeks a reasonable length of notice to be given by the Claimant for termination of her contract of employment with the Defendant. Since that exhibit required the employer to give 2 weeks' notice or pay the equivalent sum to the company, I hold that the Defendant in this instant is also obliged to give the Claimant 2 weeks' notice or pay the equivalent amount to the Claimant. After all what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. The only evidence I have of the Claimant's termination of employment was the averment of the Claimant that her appointment was terminated by the 2nd Defendant via telephone on 23/9/12. That averment was neither contradicted nor challenged. Not having been given a reasonable notice or any notice at all I hold and declare that the termination of the Claimant's employment with the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant was unlawful, wrongful and against the agreed terms of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant Company evidenced by the 1st Defendant Company's offer of employment which became effective on 7/12/11. The second relief is for an Order of this Honourable Court declaring that the 1st Defendant Company and the 2nd Defendant (being the alter ego, Chief Executive Officer, Managing Director and the directing mind of the 1st Defendant Company) are indebted to the Claimant to the tune of N800,000.00k (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the total sum of the 8 months’ salary of N100,000.00 per month owed to the Claimant from 1st February, 2012 to September, 2012 when her employment was terminated. I have held in relation to issue 1 that the contract of employment was between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant and that the 2nd Defendant was not a party to same. That being the case, whatever liability there may be to the Claimant can only be with respect to the 1st Defendant. I have evidence before me to the effect that Claimant's monthly remuneration was =N=100,000.00. See Exh. MA1. Exh. MA2 attested to the fact that Claimant's salary was paid up to January 2012. I have no evidence before me that the Claimant was so paid her remunerations for the period February to September 2012. I here declare that the 1st Defendant Company is indebted to the Claimant to the tune of N800,000.00k (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the total sum of the 8 months’ salary of N100,000.00 per month owed to the Claimant from 1st February, 2012 to September, 2012 when her employment was terminated. The third relief sought is for an order of this Honourable Court declaring the non-payment of the Claimant’s 8 months’ salary of N800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) even after the unlawful termination of her employment with the 1st Defendant Company, as unlawful. Having so held in relation to the second relief sought, I further declare that the non-payment of the Claimant's 8 months' salary of =N=800,000.00 even after the termination of her employment with the 1st Defendant is unlawful. The fourth relief is for the sum of =N=800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the value of the salaries/emoluments owed to the Claimant by the Defendants from 1st February, 2012 to September 2012 when the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant Company was unlawfully terminated. Exh. MA6 is evidence of the fact that as at 12/9/12 the Claimant was still a staff of the 2nd Defendant. For, on 14/9/12, the Claimant made a deposit of =N=44,000.00 to the Account Number 0051688429 of the 1st Defendant at GT Bank Plc. I have earlier found by Exh. MA2 that the Claimant salary was paid only up to January 2012. Cognizance of the foregoing, I hold that the sum of =N=800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the value of the salaries/emoluments is owed to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant from 1st February, 2012 to September 2012 when the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant Company was unlawfully terminated. The fifth relief is for the sum of N50,000.00k (Fifty Thousand Naira) being the equivalent of the money due to the Claimant by the Defendants as “pay (being the Claimant’s two-week salary) in lieu of notice” before the Claimant’s employment was unlawfully terminated. I have found in this Judgment that the Claimant was entitled to a reasonable notice in the absence of any specific provision in Exh. MA1 which I also held to be 2 weeks' notice or its equivalent sum in lieu of notice of termination of her employment. Now by Exh. MA1, the monthly remuneration of the Claimant was =N=100,000.00. The equivalent of 2 weeks pay is thus =N=50,000.00. Not having been given the requisite 2 weeks' notice of termination, I hold and order the 1st Defendant to pay the sum of =N=50,000.00 only to the Claimant being the Claimant's 2-week salary in lieu of notice. The sixth relief sought by the Claimant is for 21% interest on the sums stated in paragraphs (d) and (e) above from September 2012 (when the Claimant’s employment was unlawfully terminated) till the date of judgment and 7% interest from the date of judgment to the final settlement of the said sums. The Claimant did not lead evidence to her claim for 21% interest or any amount of interest at all. The law is settled that every averment in pleadings must be proved by sufficient and credible evidence to warrant favourable disposition by the Court. Not having been proved, a claim for 21% is refused and dismissed. However, by Order 21 Rule 4 of the National Industrial Court Rules, 2007, this Court may on its own award interest of not less than 10% on any judgment sum it awards. Pursuant therefore to the Rules of this Court, I award interest at the rate of 10% per annum of all sums due under this Judgment from September 2012 till date. The seventh relief sought is for the sum of N2,000,000.00 (Two Million Naira) as general damages for the unlawful and wrongful terminations and arrears of salaries/emoluments by the Defendants. In an action for wrongful termination of employment, the remedy available to an employee is in damages and the quantum of damages is the monetary value of the length of notice which the Claimant is entitled to under the contract of employment, see Osisanya v Afribank Nigeria Plc 2007)6 NWLR (Pt. 1031) 565 at 586. In the instant case, I have held that the Claimant was entitled to 2 weeks notice or the equivalent in monetary term. I have also in this Judgment awarded the sum of =N=50,000.00 as the amount due to the Claimant in lieu of notice. I find no basis for a claim for general damages as sought by the Claimant. Such has no support in law. This relief is therefore refused and dismissed. The final relief sought is for the cost of this action in the sum of N200,000.00 being the concessionary fee agreed with the Claimant’s Counsel. Without dissipating unnecessary energy and time on the argument advanced by learned Counsel, it sufficient to hold that this head of claim must be refused. The position of the law in relation to a claim of this nature is well stated by the Court of Appeal in Guinness Nigeria Limited v. Nwoke (2000)15 NWLR (Pt. 689) 135 at 150 when Ibiyeye J.C.A stated that it is unethical and an affront to public policy to pass on the burden of Solicitor's fees to the other party. This relief is thus refused and dismissed accordingly being both unethical and an affront to public policy. Finally, for the avoidance of doubt and for all the reasons as stated in this Judgment, I hold and declare that- 1. the 2nd Defendant is not a proper party in this suit; that his name ought to be struck out of same and the name of the 2nd Defendant - Mr. James Umusu, is here struck out of this suit. 2. the termination of the Claimant's employment with the 1st Defendant by the 2nd Defendant was unlawful, wrongful and against the agreed terms of employment between the Claimant and the 1st Defendant Company evidenced by the 1st Defendant Company's offer of employment which became effective on 7/12/11. 3. the 1st Defendant Company is indebted to the Claimant to the tune of N800,000.00k (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the total sum of the 8 months’ salary of N100,000.00 per month owed to the Claimant from 1st February, 2012 to September, 2012 when her employment was terminated. 4, the non-payment of the Claimant's 8 months' salary of =N=800,000.00 even after the termination of her employment with the 1st Defendant is unlawful. 5. the sum of =N=800,000.00 (Eight Hundred Thousand Naira) being the value of the salaries/emoluments is owed to the Claimant by the 1st Defendant from 1st February, 2012 to September 2012 when the Claimant’s employment with the 1st Defendant Company was unlawfully terminated. 6. the 1st Defendant shall pay the sum of =N=50,000.00 only to the Claimant being the Claimant's 2-week salary in lieu of notice. 7. the 1st Defendant shall pay interest at the rate of 10% per annum of all sums due under this Judgment from September 2012 till date. 8. the claim for general damages as sought by the Claimant is refused and dismissed same having not found support in law. 9. the claim for Solicitor's fees is refused and dismissed. All sums due under this Judgment shall be paid within 14 days from the date of this Judgment. Judgment is entered accordingly. __________________ Hon. Justice J. D. Peters Presiding Judge