Download PDF
IN THE NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL COURT OF NIGERIA HOLDEN AT ABUJA Before His Lordship: - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP) - Judge Tuesday 21th October, 2014 SUIT NO: NICN/ABJ/209/2013 Between: Charles U. Ekhator Claimant And Alliance Autos Nigeria Limited and Others Defendants REPRESENTATION Parties absent; P.A Nweke Esq holding the brief of P.A. Ofoegbulam Esq. for the claimant ; Chidi Obere Nwachukwu Esq. for the defendant. JUDGMENT By a complaint dated and file in this court on the 7th of August 2013 the claimant prayed this court as follows: (1) A declaration that the claimant is entitled to fair hearing in matters concerning his employment in accordance with the 1st defendant’s company’s rules and regulation. (2) A declaration that the defendant’s failure to comply with employee’s handbook and guideline in the termination of the claimants appointment is wrongful and unconstitutional. (3) The payment of the sum of N10,000.000.00 (Ten million naira) only as damages for wrongful termination of the claimants employment. The parties filed their respective frontloaded processes in accordance with the rules of this court. The claimant thereafter opened his case by calling two witnesses and tendered six exhibits namely: (1) Exhibit CE O1 claimant witness statement on oath (2) Exhibit CE 02 additional claimant witness statement on oath (3) Claimant appointment letter dated 27th October 2010 is exhibit CE 03 (4) Claimants termination letter –exhibit CE 04 (5) Exhibit CE 05 is 1st defendant handbook. (6) Exhibit CE 06 is 1st claimant witness statement on oath. The 1st claimant witness Mr. Charles Ekhator testified for himself as the claimant. He adopted his witness statements on oath filed on the 7th of August 2013 including the additional witness statement. In cross examination, the claimant testified that he was a senior Electrician with the 1st defendant before his appointment was terminated. He reemphasized the content of exhibits CE 01 and 02 as the truth and not lies; he denied ever diverting the 1st defendant customers to his private workshop as he never knew Mrs. Anthonia Uweja before the incident that led to his termination as a senior electrician with the 1st defendant. He also denied ever diverted a customer of the 1st defendant on the 14th of March 2013 to a man called “Ibadan” for the purpose of doing her job for her at a lesser price as nobody waited for her till 7pm. The witness denied conspiring with one Mayowa to collect N132,000 from Mrs. Anthonia Uweja for the purpose of repairing her jeep privately even though he knew Mayowa as a service adviser with the 1st defendant. The witness admitted preparing the estimate of 4th March 2013 but denied that of 14th March 2013. He testified that he did the following repair work on Mrs. Anthonia Uweja’s car namely: (1) He changed the Yaw rate censor (2) He changed the steering angle censor (3) He changed the pedal censor All the repair he did were official as he did not bye pass the store man to get the spare parts, as he obtained the permission of the store man to get the materials outside the 1st defendant premises since the spare parts are not available in the premises of the 1st defendant . The witness claimed that all what he did on Mrs. Uweja’s car was known to the 1st defendants work shop manager as he reported everything to him. Witness further testified that it is the normal practice to purchase spare parts outside the 1st defendant as directed by the workshop manager to repair vehicles so as not to disappoint customers and that he will be surprise if the workshop manager comes to court to deny it and that up till date the workshop manager has not called him to question him on all the things he did on Mrs. Anthonia Uweja’s car. He denied changing the Ezm and the BCM of Mrs. Uweja’s vehicle as he only use them to test run and find the fault of the vehicle but that the spare parts in question were collected from the spare part dealer and returned to the workshop manager who is in custody of them. The claimant denied ever being queried or interrogated by the 2nd defendant as he was never called by anybody to explain anything in the presence of Mrs. Anthonia Uweja. He denied ever doing anything wrong to the vehicle of Mrs. Anthonia Uweja neither did he do anything wrong to the 1st defendant his employer in connection with the repair of jeep in question. He stated that on the 22nd of April 2013, around closing hours, he was called into the office of the 2nd defendant at the showroom and was handed over a letter of termination as he did not even know his alleged offence and nobody ever gave him any hearing or query on the subject matter. He agreed that Exhibit CE 05 in paragraph 3:19 attracts dismissal for gross misconduct. He disagreed to the fact that the 1st defendant was magnanimous in terminating his employment instead of dismissing him as he will be surprise that if the person called “Ibadan” will come to court to say that I took Mrs. Anthonia Uweja jeep to his private place for repair as he will also be surprise if Mrs. Uweja conceive to come to say anything contrary to his testimony. The 2nd claimant witness Mr. Jackson Bala Oni adopted his witness statement on oath and was cross examined. He identified his employer, stated their address and details and gave the name of the Managing Director of his employer as Mr. Ahmadu. He stated that on the 22nd of April 2013, he came to the premises of 1st defendant to deliver a parcel as a courier staff and he left upon delivery. The defence opened on the 4th of February 2014 with the testimony of Mrs. Atuanya, the 2nd defendant as the 1st claimant witness. He identified the claimant as her formal staff who worked as a Senior Electrician before his appointment was terminated. The witness statement on oath was adopted as her oral testimony in defence of this suit as she was cross examined. The witness who has being with the 1st defendant for 8 years had a master degree in pharmacy. She identified the exhibit CE 05 the 1st defendant handbook and emphasized that it guides the staff conduct in their employment as all staff in the 1st defendants establishment are suppose to obey it; she stated that the appointment of the claimant was terminated due to misconduct as stated in the letter of termination exhibit CE 04 . She testified that according to paragraph 4:5 of exhibit CE 05, she was suppose to issue warning after investigation if the claimant is found guilty and she did not issue any query because she was not in the position to do so. She claim to be in the know of all the activities in the 1st defendant establishment as she oversees all the operations of the entire branches. She may not know any fraudulent activities carried out by staff behind her. The witness further stated that some of the staff of the 1st defendant by virtue of the content of their letter of appointment report to unit heads such as workshop manager as the 1st defendant have five departments namely: accounts, sales, workshop, reception, and body shops and the various departmental heads report to her as a regional manager. She testified that the investigation into the allegation against the claimant took her one day to conclude i.e between 1pm of 21st April 2013 which is Sunday to afternoon of 22nd April 2013 which was Monday. She stated that an Armada jeep vehicle was brought to the reception of 1st defendant and recorded and assigned to the claimant to dictate fault and advised accordingly and report to workshop manager which he failed to do. The claimant, she stated who is not suppose to prepare repair estimate did it instead of referring the preparation of repair estimate to workshop manager. The witness testified further that prior to this incident, she had verbally queried the claimant as she had no power to issue written query to the claimant . The 2nd defence witness Mr. Seye Adekoye is the workshop manager of the 1st defendant. He adopted his written statement on oath as his oral testimony in support of the defence case. He was cross examined. He stated that a customer car was brought to 1st defendant workshop twice, first on the 4th of March 2013 and 2nd towards the end of March 2013. The witness stated also that the first contact made by Mrs. Anthonia Uweja when she brought the jeep was with the receptionist who will do all the formalities. The estimate carries the date it was made as it was not possible to alter the date except if the error is typographical. He testified that there was no further estimate when the vehicle was brought back on the 27th of March 2013 by the customer, Mrs. Anthonia Uweja. The estimate he stated was made on 14th March 2013. Witness identified one Mayowa, the service adviser of the 1st defendant as the first contact with the customers Mrs. Anthonia Uweja and that he was responsible for bringing the vehicle to the workshop. The total estimate made in early March 2013 on the vehicle he stated was N215,000.00 and he was not opportune to see the customer. He identified his schedule of duties as overseeing the activities and operation of branch targets towards meeting customers’ satisfaction. He testified that the duty of workshop manager includes taking advise from service adviser who identified the vehicle problem or fault as contain in the job order and job card as he was never advised on this vehicle in issue. He admitted seeing someone working on the vehicle on 29th March 2013 in the 1st defendant premises and the job card did not contain estimate of repair as the vehicle was taken from the front of receptionist to the workshop. He stated further that this case of misconduct leading to termination was investigated for one day as he cannot determine the hours and the investigation was done in the morning towards 12 noon as he cannot recollect the date but a mail was sent to Lagos on Monday and investigation took place on Monday. He further testified that the 1st defendant has a store keeper and where needed parts are ordered from Lagos and where not available, the local supplier supplies the spare parts. The witness identified the claimant as the one that prepared the estimate when the vehicle was brought to the company the first time and when the claimant is unavailable, his deputy Kazeem Alausa prepares the estimate whether it was electrical or mechanical problem. The witness finally stated that as workshop manager he was close to all his staff including Mayowa Raymond Owa and he directs them on what to do as Mayowa is one of the service advisers under him. The defendants closed their cases after tendering the following exhibits in support of their cases (1) 1st defendants witness statement on oath is exhibit CE 07 (2) Email dated 27th September, 2013 is exhibit CE 08 (3) Receipt of solicitors fees is exhibit CE 09. (4) Email on complaint by Mrs. Anthonia Uweja a customer Exhibit CE 010. (5) Statement on oath of 2nd witness of defendant exhibit CE 011. (6) Repair estimate prepared by claimant Exhibit CE 012 (7) Job estimate prepared by Raymond Mayowa Owa Exhibit CE 013 On the 9th of June 2014 counsel adopted their final written addresses. The defendant counsel Chidi Nwachukwu formulated three issues for determination namely: (1) Whether the claimant has put before this honourable court sufficient material evidence to entitle the claimant judgment against the defendants as prayed in the relieve sought in the claimant’s statement of claim. (2) Whether the claimant employment was duly terminated on the basis of the terms of his contract of employment and article 3:19 of Exhibit CE 05 in particular. (3) Whether the defendants are entitled to the sum of N1,000.00.00 being cost of this action? In stating the law, counsel submitted that employer is entitle to dismiss his servant from his employment for good, bad or no reason at all. Counsel relay on Maiduguri Flour Mills Ltd Vs. Abba 1996 9 NWLR (Pt. 473) 506. He also submitted that parties to a contract are bound by it terms in accordance with the decision in Isheno Vs. Julius Berger Nig Plc 2008 23 WRN 61. Counsel contended further that claimant, on a claim for wrongful termination is duty bound to show that a contract exist and that the contract was breached as the procedure for termination was not followed. Counsel cited the case of NITEL Plc Vs. Akwa 2006 2 NWLR Pt. 391 at 414; Engr Kayode Moses Adu Vs. CFAO Technologies Nig Ltd unreported suit No. NIC/ABJ/90/2011. Counsel stated that a master can terminate an employment contract but such termination may be with or without a reason and the master must however pay salary for the period of notice provided in the contract of employment /parties He cited the case of WAEC Vs. Obisesan 2008 26 WRN 1-205 at 137. Counsel further submitted that where a worker is fired in accordance with the terms and condition of their contract of employment, there is nothing the court can do as such termination is valid in the eyes of the law. Counsel cited again the case of Isheno Vs. Julius Berger Nig Plc 2008 23 WRN at 61. It is trite law, counsel stated that the master has unfettered right to terminate the employment of a servant but in doing so he must comply with the procedure stipulated in their contract. Counsel call in aid the case of Longe Vs. FBN 2010 36 WRN I, 63. He further contended that an employer is not bound to give reason for terminating the appointment of employee but where as in this case the defendant dismissed the claimant on ground of gross misconduct, the onus is on the defendant to satisfy the court that the claimant ought to be dismissed. Counsel cited the case of Omojuyigbe Vs. NIPOST 2010 24 WRN 1-193 at 124; SPDC Vs. Olarewaju 2009 6 WRN 53, 18 NWLR Pt. 1118. Mr. Nwachukwu also cited the case of Omorogbe Vs. Lawani 1980 3-4 SC 108 to attest to the fact that Unchallenged evidence need no further prove and the court is duty bound to accept the evidence in so far as the evidence is not unreasonable. On issue one, counsel submitted that in a claim bordering on termination of contract of employment, it is the duty of the claimant to tender and place before the court contract terms and also to prove to the court on how they are breached. Counsel cited the case of NITEL Plc Vs. Akwa 2006 2 NWLR Pt. 391 at 414 and posited that claimant had failed to show the court how the contract of employment have been breached in its terms; counsel also drew the courts attention to the contradiction in the testimony of the 2nd claimants witness Mr. Jackson Baba Oni as reflected in cross examination. Counsel also drew the courts attention to the inconsistencies in the testimony of the claimant and exhibit CE 12 and urged the court to resolve issue one in favour of the defendant as the claimant has failed to put before the court sufficient materials to entitle him to his claims. On issue two, counsel referred the court to paragraphs 3:18 and 3:19 of exhibit CE05, the defendants staff handbook and Guideline and urged the court to hold that the termination of the claimants employment was in accordance with exhibit CE 05, the staff hand book as parties to an agreement or contract are bound by it terms and conditions. Counsel emphasized the fact that the evidence of the 2nd and 3rd defendants which are exhibits CE 07 and 011 shown clearly that the claimant was given fair hearing and was accordingly terminated for gross misconduct as stipulated in the staff handbook i.e exhibit CE 05. Counsel cited the case of Longe Vs. FBN Plc 2010 36 WRN I at 63. Counsel also urged the court to hold that an employer has the unfettered power to terminate the employee contract with or without reason but must follow the procedure laid down for such termination in the staff hand book and that the 1st defendant in this case has done exactly that. Counsel referred the court to the case of E Fuwape Vs. UBA Plc 2007 Vol. 37 WRN 192; Isheno Vs. Julius Berger Nig Plc 2008 23 WRN 62. On issue 3, counsel submitted that the defendants are entitled to the cost of this action in view of the testimony of the 1st defendant witness and exhibit CE 09 which represents the solicitors fees. Counsel contended that since this fact as a special damage have been specifically proved without being controverted by the claimant, the court should regard it as an unchallenged evidence and therefore duly proved. Counsel call in aid the case of Omorogbe Vs. Lawani 1980 3-4 SC 108. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the entire claims of the claimant; In His final written address, claimant counsel Mr. Pius A. Ofoegbunam formulated two issues for determination as follows; (1) Whether or not the defendant were right in relying solely on article 3:18 in the termination of the claimants appointment for misconduct without regard to the prescribed due process as contained in article 4:05 of exhibit CE 05. (2) If answer to issue 1 is in the negative, whether in consideration of the evidence before the Honourable court, the claimant has discharged the onus of proof placed on him to be entitled to the relief sought. on issue one, counsel submitted that the relationship between the litigants in this case is govern by exhibit 05, i.e the staff handbook and as such the defendant who has given misconduct in Exhibit 04 as a reason for termination of claimant employment has the burden to justify that reason before the court and that the rule of natural justice were not breached. Counsel relied on the case of SPDC Ltd Vs. Chief Victor Sunday Olarewaju 2008 12 SC (PT.111 ) 27 at 43 paragraph 20-35. It is further contended that the procedure laid down for termination in Exhibit 05 were not followed by the defendant before the claimant appointment was terminated. The claimant, counsel submitted was never queried and the evidence of DWI and Exhibit CE 01 paragraph 7 attest to this fact, counsel submitted. He referred the court to the cases of Adesei and Others Vs. Adebayo 2012 I SC Pt. IV 95; Nigerian Romainian Wood Industries Ltd Vs. J.O Akingbuluabe 2011 11 NWLR Pt. 1257 page 131. Counsel emphasized the fact that Exhibit 05 being critical to this case has four parts and must be construed holistically as each part forms an integral part of the whole as paragraphs 3:18,19 and paragraph 4:5 all deals on termination as any reliance on article 3:18 and 19 must have due regard to the due process provision in article 4:5 of Exhibit CE 05. The defendants, counsel argued are under an obligation to comply with Exhibit CE O5. Counsel also contended that parties to a contract of employment who are bound by their agreement signed has no right to void or breach it without justifiable reason; counsel call in aid the cases of Punch Nigerian Ltd Vs. Jumsum Nigerian Ltd. 2011 12 NWLR Pt. 1260 162 at 185; Olufeagba and Others Vs. Abdulraheem 2009 12 SC Pt II at I. On issue two, counsel referred the court to the meaning of declaratory relief while contending that section 36 of the 1999 constitution of Nigeria as amended did not entitle the defendant to terminate the employment of the claimant the way they did without first of all complying with article 4:5 of exhibit CE 05. Counsel urged the court to hold that the termination is in breach of the right of fair hearing guaranteed by the Nigerian constitution 1999 as amended. Counsel further referred the court to paragraphs 33-39 of Exhibit CE 01 and the testimony of DWI and Exhibits 05, Exhibits CE 02 to hold that the fair hearing principle was not adhered to by the defendant before the defendant’s appointment was terminated. The claimant counsel further submitted that in view of the fact that exhibit CE 04 was publicly read to the hearing of other individuals, it has constituted defamation as the content was published and it contains defamatory words; as he is no longer held in an Esteem manner by Co-workers and colleagues in the place of work; Counsel contended that the issue in question is about what the third party will think of the claimant as his integrity have been lowered in the eye of right thinking members of the workplace. Counsel referred the court to exhibits CE01 Paragraphs 29, 30 and 33; Exhibit CE 06 and the cases of Skye Bank Plc Vs. Akinpelu 2010 3 SC (Pt. II) 29; Offoboche Vs. Ogoja Local Government 2001 7 (Pt. 111) 107. It is the argument of counsel that the defendant has not denied nor controverted the evidence of claimant witnesses I and 2 to the effect that the exhibit 4 was read in public at the presence of people and workers and that the particulars of defamation and the evidence thereto have not been denied by the 1st defendant. Counsel raised the issue of contradictions in the testimonies of Mrs. Atuanya, the 1st defendant witness statement on oath and urged the court to believe the credible witness and testimony of the claimant. Counsel finally urged the court to find for the claimant as his evidence place on the imaginary scale is more credible, more value in probative and qualitative in content; Counsel referred the court to the case of Iragbara Vs. Ufomdu (2001) 10 WRN 161 In His reply on point of law, counsel submitted that Exhibit CE 05 which was the contract of employment freely entered into by the parties are binding on the parties and the defendant has the right to solely rely on article 3: 18 of exhibit CE 05; counsel cited the case of Maiduguri flour Mills Ltd Vs. Abba 1996 9 NWLR Pt. 473, 506. Counsel further submitted that this court being a special court has no power over issues bordering on defamation and referred the court to section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and urged the court to dismiss the entire suit I have heard the learned counsel in their various submissions arising from the claims before the court and the trial of this suit. The fact of this case is that the claimant who was employed by the first defendant as a senior electrician was terminated for an allegation of misconduct relating to the handling of a customer’s Armada Jeep vehicle which was brought in for repairs. The claimant who denied the allegation during trial contended that he was not given fair hearing before his appointment was terminated as the disciplinary procedure stated in the defendants handbook was not followed as the termination letter which was read out in the presence of other persons had incurred injury to his reputation in the eye of right thinking members at the workplace as he had suffered damages as a result of such defamation of character; the claimant therefore brought this suit against the defendant to ventilate his grievances and assert his rights. It is trite law that civil cases are determine on the balance of probabilities. It is the primary duty of this court to place each of the parties case on an imaginary scale of justice to determine where the scale tilt more. It is also the law that he who asserts must prove in other to discharge the burden of proof place on him. In civil cases as well, the fate of every case depends on the pleadings and the evidence in support. See the cases of Esiegbe Vs. Agholor 1993 9 NWLR Pt. 316 at 150; Ede Vs. Okafor 1990 2 NWLR Pt. 150 356 SC I . The duty of a trial court is to assess the evidence before him to see whether or not the claimant has discharged the burden of proof in a case before him. The standard of proof in a civil claim is proof on balance of probabilities upon preponderance of evidence. See the case of FBN Plc Vs. Onukwugha 2005 16 NWLR Pt 950 120 at 153; Ibadan LGPC Ltd Vs. Okunade 2005 2 NWLR Pt. 911 45 at 65; Onwuka Vs. Omogui 1992 2 NWLR Pt. 230 393 at 424 paragraph E.G. Leventis Motors Ltd Vs. Nunieh 1999 13 NWLR (Pt. 634 ) 235. The lone question that calls for determination on this case is whether the claimant has sufficiently proved his case to entitle him to judgment on all the reliefs sought therein. The three reliefs of the claimant as sought in his statement of facts which supposed the complaint borders principally on breach of fair hearing rule upon the failure of the 1st defendant to comply with exhibit CE 05, the staff handbook and guideline: the other claim is ancillary. Fair hearing means opportunity to be heard. See the case of Lawrence Idemudia Oborkhale Vs. LASU 2013 30 NLLR Pt. 85 I NIC. It could also mean “hear the other side” See Imonikhe Vs. Unity Bank Plc 2011 12 NWLR Pt. 1262) 624 at 640. The law is that a person likely to be affected directly by the disciplinary proceedings must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to afford him the opportunity for representation in his defence. See the case of Arinze Vs. FBN Ltd 2004 12 NWLR (Pt. 888) 663 SC; ATA Poly Vs. Maina 2005 10 NWLR Pt. 934 487. In the evidence of Mrs. Christiana Atuanya the DWI, she said she started the investigation against the claimant at about 1pm on Sunday and concluded the following day on Monday within 24 hours. The DW2 says the investigation was done on Monday before 12 noon. The defence witnesses DWI also says, she gave no query to the claimant because she was not in the position to do so and that she had given oral warning to the claimant before this incident in this case; she did not give details or any particulars about the incident leading to the previous oral warning. In the present case, the DWI who is the regional manager of the defendant told the court that she called the claimant to the office and confronted him with the allegation of misconduct bordering on fraudulent or dishonest dealing with customers car. The witness did not tell the court how long the interrogation took even though the law says the person likely to be affected by any disciplinary proceeding must be given adequate notice of the allegation against him to afford him the opportunity of defending himself. This explains the rational behind the issue of query which is normally given to enable staff explain within a reasonable time. In this case and from the testimony of Mrs. Atuanya, who conducted the disciplinary proceeding in form of interrogation, there is no notice of allegation and no reasonable time provided to defend the allegation suffice it to say that the allegation of serious misconduct leveled borders on dishonest and fraudulent dealing with customers car which is a crime. The letter of employment and the staff handbook which are exhibits CE 03 and CE 05 are germane to this case because, they form the constituent of contract of employment. Exhibit CE 03 says; “The company may terminate your employment without notice and at any time if you will be guilty of serious misconduct, gross negligence or failure to obey orders…….” Article 3: 18 of Exhibit 05 says “--------termination of appointment shall be the subject of notice, on either side, except in cases of summary dismissal” Article 3:19 of Exhibit 05 says: “Employees guilty of serious misconduct may be dismissed summarily by the management without notice or payment in lieu thereof” The question is how will serious misconduct be determine? In this context, the defendant also provided a disciplinary procedure for that purpose. Article 4.5 of exhibit 05 says: (i) If any employee commits an offence amounting to serious misconduct, he/she shall be given a warning after a query is issued and answer obtained. (ii) If the first and second written warnings have been given, and a third offence is committed, the service of the employee may be terminated. The further question that agitates the mind then is was the claimant given a query sequel to the commission of serious misconduct? When the serious misconduct was discovered and the claimant found guilty according to DWI the regional manager, was he given the 1st warning?’ was the claimant ever given a 2nd warning before the issuance of Exhibit CE 04 terminating the claimant employment? The evidence of the defendants Exhibits CE 7, CE 11 and the contract terms and condition which are Exhibits CE 03 and CE 05 all talks about serious misconduct. The letter of termination gave the reason for termination as misconduct ie Exhibit CE 04. There is no evidence before the court that the defendant followed the disciplinary procedure as made out under article 4.5 of Exhibit 05. Consequently where the termination of claimants employment violates the terms or condition of the contract, then the termination is wrongful. See Ajayi Vs. Texaco Nig. Ltd 1987 3 NWLR Pt 62 577 SC. A payment in lieu of notice will apply where the court makes a finding of wrongful termination in favour of an employee i.e where an employee is able to establish that his employment was wrongfully terminated, he would be entitled to damages and this would be what was due to him for the period of notice. Exhibit CE 03 states 2 months as period of notice in the event of termination on either side. See generally on this principle the case of Isievwore Vs. NEPA 2002 13 NWLR (Pt. 784) 417 SC. I therefore hold that the defendant did not follow the procedure laid down by article 4.5 of Exhibit CE 05 and therefore the termination is wrongful. The defendant counsel has argued strenuously and vehemently that the employer has the right to terminate the employment of the employee with or without reason. YES! I agree with him, but he should also remember that once a reason is given and the defendant cannot justify that reason when contested by the claimant, he fails as in this case as it is an obligation of the defendant to follow the disciplinary procedure laid down by Exhibit CE 05. The defendant argued in his submission that he has been able to prove special damages of litigation fees due to the professional fees paid for the prosecution of this defence as shown in Exhibit CE 09. I have looked at the processes filed by the defendant. There is no counter claim before the court as no fees have been paid as such. Moreover, even if there is any counter claim in this suit, it fails because of the evidence before this court as to the wrongful termination of the claimants employment. The claimant also posited and made a heavy weather on the claim for emotional, physical, financial loss occasioned by the defamatory publication against him. Throughout the trial of this suit, there is no evidence of hospitalization for 2 days or the payment of hospital bills or damage to reputation as stated in the particulars of loss in paragraphs 32 of the statement of claim/facts/pleadings. It is trite law that facts pleaded if not supported by credible evidence is deemed abandoned. Moreover, these issues borders on special damages which ought to be proved specially and strictly too. Worse still by the provision of section 7 of the National Industrial Court Act 2006 and section 254C of the 1919 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN) as amended, this court has no jurisdiction over issues connected arising or incidental to the tort of defamation. The jurisdictional mandate of this specialized court is to deal with issues on employment laws and workplace issues on employment and not on the general law of tort. Consequently I hold that I have no jurisdiction on the issue of defamation. The evidence of Jackson Balaoni goes to no issue. From the reasonings and conclusions stated so far in this judgment and for the avoidance of doubt, judgment is hereby entered for the claimant as follows; (1) The claimant is entitled to fair hearing in matters concerning his employment in accordance with the 1st defendant’s company rules and regulations. (2) The defendants failure to comply with employees handbook and guidelines in the termination of the claimants appointment is wrongful. (3) The defendant shall pay two months’ salary to the claimant in lieu of notice of termination in accordance with the claimants letter of appointment. Cost of this suit is assessed as N30,000.00 in favour of claimant. This judgment is to be satisfied within thirty days from today. ---------------------------- - Hon. Justice P.O Lifu (JP.) Judge